PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Your FDA hard at work stealing and killing


BIG_DADDY
06-13-2011, 10:06 PM
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/06/11/burzynski-the-movie.aspx

I know everytime we see this, which is constantly, it's all made up because the FDA just loves us but it does make for good entertainment.

CrazyPhuD
06-14-2011, 01:27 AM
Yes because the FDA is the only one that's holding back this 'research'.

Let's start with some elementary back ground information....

From his wiki page....

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

From 1970 to 1972, Burzynski was employed as Research Associate at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas. In 1972, he was named Assistant Professor of Medicine at Baylor and remained in this position until 1977. He authored and co-authored 16 publications, including five concerning his research on peptides and their effect on human cancer. Burzynski named these peptides antineoplastons due to their alleged activity in correcting and normalizing neoplastic, or cancerous, cells.

So first interesting factoid. He was an assistant professor for ~5 years...while the exact length of a tenure program can vary, I have often seen the first tenure review happen around 4 years and people may often stay an additional year as part of job search and/or progress(some programs apparently can take up to 6). But I find it interesting that he was an assistant professor(non-tenured)for right around the time it takes for them to decide if you are to receive tenure or not. Since he did not receive a promotion to 'associate professor' the next rank and tenured that suggests that the work he was doing was not deemed worthy enough to warrant a tenure award. That alone makes me question the validity of the work. IF it were ground breaking then he would have been promoted and tenured and then if he wanted he could start his own clinic. But he wasn't, all indications are he was denied tenure.

Then we take a step to the next article....

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

The clinical efficacy of antineoplastons combinations for various diseases have been the subject of many such trials by Burzynski and his associates, but these have not produced any clear evidence of efficacy. Oncologists have described these studies as flawed, with one doctor stating that they are "scientific nonsense".[5] In particular, independent scientists have been unable to reproduce the positive results reported in Burzynski's studies.[6]

There is no convincing evidence from randomized controlled trials in the scientific literature that antineoplastons are useful treatments of cancer and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved these products for the treatment of any disease.[2] The American Cancer Society has stated that there is no evidence that these products have any beneficial effects in cancer and have recommended that people do not buy these products.[7] A 2004 medical review described this treatment as a "disproven therapy".[8]

Well and now we get to the real meat of issue. Not only is the FDA not approving the treatment. To date independent scientists have not been able to replicate his work. Which means there is no evidence that it works. So this isn't an FDA issue...at this time there is no scientific evidence that says this even remotely works. So unless you're now going to position that the FDA not only controls the approval process but the entire medical scientific community, I think we can safely say this does not have evidence that proves it can cure cancer and if he is claiming as such I have no issue seeing him get hammered down. We have enough snake oil salesmen in this world....

If you want to read one of the articles it is here....

http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/reprint/54/2/110.pdf

excerpt.....

Stanislaw Burzynski treats patients at a private clinic using what he terms antineoplastons, mixtures of peptides, amino acids, and other simple organic substances that are said to promote the body’s natural defenses against cancer. Although he has published several studies of his own, these are of a rather unclear design. A Phase II trial in glioma conducted under the auspices of the National Cancer Institute was halted due to poor accrual, after Burzynski failed to agree with the investigators on possible expansion of the eligibility criteria. Nine patients were accrued, six of whom were able to be evaluated for response. There were no objective responses, and all six showed evidence of tumor progression after treatment durations of between 16 to 66 days. The mean time to treatment failure (progression or discontinuation due to toxicity) was 29 days. All nine patients died before the study closed, all but one death being due to tumor progression. Although the authors of the article claimed that the small sample size precluded “definitive conclusions,” the results of the patients in the trial are clearly extremely disappointing.

There's also exercise of good science because the authors comment on how it will be difficult to draw conclusions because of the small sample size(which appears to be the result of Burzynski.

You may have issue with the FDA but at this time all evidence points to them making the correct decision here. Until he has independently verifiable results his treatment does not cure anything.....

mikey23545
06-14-2011, 03:19 AM
Yes because the FDA is the only one that's holding back this 'research'.

Let's start with some elementary back ground information....

From his wiki page....

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



So first interesting factoid. He was an assistant professor for ~5 years...while the exact length of a tenure program can vary, I have often seen the first tenure review happen around 4 years and people may often stay an additional year as part of job search and/or progress(some programs apparently can take up to 6). But I find it interesting that he was an assistant professor(non-tenured)for right around the time it takes for them to decide if you are to receive tenure or not. Since he did not receive a promotion to 'associate professor' the next rank and tenured that suggests that the work he was doing was not deemed worthy enough to warrant a tenure award. That alone makes me question the validity of the work. IF it were ground breaking then he would have been promoted and tenured and then if he wanted he could start his own clinic. But he wasn't, all indications are he was denied tenure.

Then we take a step to the next article....

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



Well and now we get to the real meat of issue. Not only is the FDA not approving the treatment. To date independent scientists have not been able to replicate his work. Which means there is no evidence that it works. So this isn't an FDA issue...at this time there is no scientific evidence that says this even remotely works. So unless you're now going to position that the FDA not only controls the approval process but the entire medical scientific community, I think we can safely say this does not have evidence that proves it can cure cancer and if he is claiming as such I have no issue seeing him get hammered down. We have enough snake oil salesmen in this world....

If you want to read one of the articles it is here....

http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/reprint/54/2/110.pdf

excerpt.....



There's also exercise of good science because the authors comment on how it will be difficult to draw conclusions because of the small sample size(which appears to be the result of Burzynski.

You may have issue with the FDA but at this time all evidence points to them making the correct decision here. Until he has independently verifiable results his treatment does not cure anything.....


/thread

Amnorix
06-14-2011, 07:52 AM
Ouch.

Brock
06-14-2011, 10:00 AM
pwned unmercifully.

Ace Gunner
06-14-2011, 10:06 AM
Yes because the FDA is the only one that's holding back this 'research'.

Let's start with some elementary back ground information....

From his wiki page....

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



So first interesting factoid. He was an assistant professor for ~5 years...while the exact length of a tenure program can vary, I have often seen the first tenure review happen around 4 years and people may often stay an additional year as part of job search and/or progress(some programs apparently can take up to 6). But I find it interesting that he was an assistant professor(non-tenured)for right around the time it takes for them to decide if you are to receive tenure or not. Since he did not receive a promotion to 'associate professor' the next rank and tenured that suggests that the work he was doing was not deemed worthy enough to warrant a tenure award. That alone makes me question the validity of the work. IF it were ground breaking then he would have been promoted and tenured and then if he wanted he could start his own clinic. But he wasn't, all indications are he was denied tenure.

Then we take a step to the next article....

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



Well and now we get to the real meat of issue. Not only is the FDA not approving the treatment. To date independent scientists have not been able to replicate his work. Which means there is no evidence that it works. So this isn't an FDA issue...at this time there is no scientific evidence that says this even remotely works. So unless you're now going to position that the FDA not only controls the approval process but the entire medical scientific community, I think we can safely say this does not have evidence that proves it can cure cancer and if he is claiming as such I have no issue seeing him get hammered down. We have enough snake oil salesmen in this world....

If you want to read one of the articles it is here....

http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/reprint/54/2/110.pdf

excerpt.....



There's also exercise of good science because the authors comment on how it will be difficult to draw conclusions because of the small sample size(which appears to be the result of Burzynski.

You may have issue with the FDA but at this time all evidence points to them making the correct decision here. Until he has independently verifiable results his treatment does not cure anything.....


I'm not sure if you're aware, but research institutes choose what they want to research based on what the gov't will pay them to research. it's called grant money. there is hella politix in research, especially in medical treatment & drugs.

furthermore, the FDA approved chemo, yet this treatment has a 95 percent failure rate.

Amnorix
06-14-2011, 10:09 AM
I'm not sure if you're aware, but research institutes choose what they want to research based on what the gov't will pay them to research. it's called grant money. there is hella politix in research, especially in medical treatment & drugs.

furthermore, the FDA approved chemo, yet this treatment has a 95 percent failure rate.


WTF? Across all stages of all cancers that it is used to treat? No it doesn't. That's absurd.

FAX
06-14-2011, 10:14 AM
The thing is that it's tough to generate positive results in clinical trials involving experimental treatments for cancer patients because usually, in order to qualify for the trial, the patient has to have already gone through traditional treatments ... unsuccessfully.

The same is true with a whole array of "incurable" diseases. You're working with patients who have already proven unresponsive to standard approaches to treatment and, therefore, their disease is typically in the later stages making it all the more difficult to produce a successful outcome.

FAX

Ace Gunner
06-14-2011, 10:20 AM
The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15630849

BIG_DADDY
06-14-2011, 10:22 AM
Yes because the FDA is the only one that's holding back this 'research'.

Let's start with some elementary back ground information....

From his wiki page....

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



So first interesting factoid. He was an assistant professor for ~5 years...while the exact length of a tenure program can vary, I have often seen the first tenure review happen around 4 years and people may often stay an additional year as part of job search and/or progress(some programs apparently can take up to 6). But I find it interesting that he was an assistant professor(non-tenured)for right around the time it takes for them to decide if you are to receive tenure or not. Since he did not receive a promotion to 'associate professor' the next rank and tenured that suggests that the work he was doing was not deemed worthy enough to warrant a tenure award. That alone makes me question the validity of the work. IF it were ground breaking then he would have been promoted and tenured and then if he wanted he could start his own clinic. But he wasn't, all indications are he was denied tenure.

Then we take a step to the next article....

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



Well and now we get to the real meat of issue. Not only is the FDA not approving the treatment. To date independent scientists have not been able to replicate his work. Which means there is no evidence that it works. So this isn't an FDA issue...at this time there is no scientific evidence that says this even remotely works. So unless you're now going to position that the FDA not only controls the approval process but the entire medical scientific community, I think we can safely say this does not have evidence that proves it can cure cancer and if he is claiming as such I have no issue seeing him get hammered down. We have enough snake oil salesmen in this world....

If you want to read one of the articles it is here....

http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/reprint/54/2/110.pdf

excerpt.....



There's also exercise of good science because the authors comment on how it will be difficult to draw conclusions because of the small sample size(which appears to be the result of Burzynski.

You may have issue with the FDA but at this time all evidence points to them making the correct decision here. Until he has independently verifiable results his treatment does not cure anything.....

Obviously you didn't watch the movie. I think I will go with 4 grand juries, you roll with your 30 second wiki search.

Amnorix
06-14-2011, 10:24 AM
The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15630849


My ten seconds of research indicates that this relates to only one of many types of chemotherapy. Give me all chemo treatments across all cancers and all stages, to the extent chemo is used, before you go saying it's only successful 5% of the time.

Brock
06-14-2011, 10:25 AM
Obviously you didn't watch the movie. I think I will go with 4 grand juries, you roll with your 30 second wiki search.

Yes, because movie critics are the best people to ask about cancer treatment.

Ace Gunner
06-14-2011, 10:26 AM
My ten seconds of research indicates that this relates to only one of many types of chemotherapy. Give me all chemo treatments across all cancers and all stages, to the extent chemo is used, before you go saying it's only successful 5% of the time.

I don't hair-split for argument's sake. you do. there's an abundance of info out there - go find it tiger

BIG_DADDY
06-14-2011, 10:30 AM
The thing is that it's tough to generate positive results in clinical trials involving experimental treatments for cancer patients because usually, in order to qualify for the trial, the patient has to have already gone through traditional treatments ... unsuccessfully.

The same is true with a whole array of "incurable" diseases. You're working with patients who have already proven unresponsive to standard approaches to treatment and, therefore, their disease is typically in the later stages making it all the more difficult to produce a successful outcome.

FAX

For those who actually watched the mountain of absurdaties and the incestuous nature of the FDA exposed by this film it is really was eye opening, which was my point. I liked the quote by the head of the FDA where he said he they will never approve anything that is not brought to them by a big pharmaceutical company with unlimited resourses. It is really easy to see why if you actually watched the film.

Amnorix
06-14-2011, 10:36 AM
I don't hair-split for argument's sake. you do. there's an abundance of info out there - go find it tiger


I'll dedicate the rest of the day to it, and return with a full report.

Meanwhile, for those who don't appreciate the costs of another quack approach to medicine, immunization refusal.



Every once in a while, there’s news of a measles outbreak. On the surface, they don’t involve large numbers of cases — there’s one in Minneapolis right now that has racked up 21 cases (http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/idepc/diseases/measles/) so far — and so people seem to wonder why these outbreaks are such a big deal.

Here’s one reason why: Measles transmission within the US stopped in 2000 because of vaccination. Outbreaks here start with an importation from somewhere else where the disease still flourishes — but they gain a foothold because lack of vaccination, primarily from vaccine refusal, lets the disease get past what should be an impregnable barrier of herd immunity to attack those who are too young to be vaccinated or whose immunity has faded.

Here’s another reason: Stopping the measles virus before it can cause serious disease — and by “serious,” I mean deafness, pneumonia, encephalitis and miscarriage — is incredibly costly and labor-intensive. An account published overnight in the Journal of Infectious Diseases (http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/04/25/infdis.jir115.abstract) gives a glimpse at just how costly. To stop a 14-person outbreak that began with one unvaccinated tourist visiting a US emergency room, the Arizona Department of Health had to track down and interview 8,321 people; seven Tucson hospitals had to furlough staff members for a combined 15,120 work-hours; and two hospitals where patients were admitted spent $799,136 to contain the disease.


Here’s how the outbreak unfolded:

In February 2008, a 37-year-old Swiss woman who had never been vaccinated against measles arrived in Tucson after a visit to Mexico. She developed breathing problems and a rash and went to a local hospital’s emergency room. They suspected she had a viral illness and admitted her.
Here’s what you have to know, to understand what happened next. Measles is extremely contagious; up to 90 percent of unvaccinated people who are exposed to it will get it. And if someone nearby has it, you will get exposed — because coughed-out measles virus can travel across a room, and hangs in the air for hours. The best protection against spreading measles in a hospital is putting someone in a negative-pressure isolation room, which is engineered so no air can leak out into the rest of the hospital. It took two days to get the Swiss tourist into isolation, because measles is rare enough in the US that it was not the hospital personnel’s first thought.

Meanwhile:

A 50-year-old woman who had spent an hour in the ER at the same time as the Swiss woman caught the disease from her. Patient 2 got taken care of, went home, and started feeling feverish nine days later. She had difficulty breathing and thought at first she was having an asthma attack, so she went back to the hospital and was admitted for two days. That she had measles would not be discovered until six days after that.
While she was in the hospital, Patient 2 unknowingly infected a 41-year-old health care worker who took care of her — and who was scheduled to get a measles-vaccine booster shot that very day, because the hospital was also caring for the tourist. Patient 2 also passed measles to an unvaccinated 11-month-old boy who was in the same ER while she was waiting to get checked for asthma, and to two unvaccinated siblings — 3 and 5 years old — who were visiting their mother on the same hospital floor after Patient 2 was admitted.

Patient 3, the health-care worker, passed measles to a 47-year-old woman in her emergency department — who later ended up in an intensive care unit with measles pneumonia — and later to a 41-year-old man in his home. Patient 4, the toddler, gave the virus to an unvaccinated 1-year-old while they were both in the same pediatrician’s office. Five other people were infected somewhere in their everyday lives: a 2-year-old boy who had never been vaccinated and who also ended up in an ICU with seizures brought on by high fever; a 9-month-old and an 8-month-old, also unvaccinated; and two adults, 35 and 37, who might have gotten one dose as children, but had no documentation of receiving a second dose.

Those 14 are just the confirmed cases. In addition to them, there were 363 suspected ones, and today’s paper makes clear authorities believe there were more illnesses than they know. And for every known case, there were dozens or hundreds of exposed people who had to be checked: 145 passengers on the tourist’s flight from Mexico, 1,795 patients in the ER that treated Patient 2, 25 people who attended church with Patient 7, 10 kids in the same day care center as Patient 8.

There’s an important dimension to this outbreak that may not be evident at first. We tend to blame parents who hold their kids back from vaccination for breaches in the wall of herd immunity. But the people who were infected in this outbreak and shared responsibility for passing it on included adult health care workers who had never been vaccinated and who had missed or declined the chance to get booster shots. By doing that, they put their unknowing patients at risk — and infected, among others, someone with brain cancer and another person living with Down syndrome.

When the hospitals checked to see who among their staff wasn’t vaccinated, they found that 30 percent didn’t know or couldn’t prove it. The two hospitals where measles patients were cared for actually did blood tests on their staff, and found that 9 percent were non-immune: never-vaccinated, never-infected. If the hospitals had not acted to identify those employees and send them home or vaccinate them, they could have hosted a roaring epidemic that might have been impossible to contain.

We can argue endlessly, and do, about people who refuse vaccination for themselves or their children. Under law, they have the right to take that risk. But what this Arizona outbreak makes clear is how many more people are forced to assume that risk without being consulted: not only the infants, elderly and immune-compromised among those 8,321 people exposed in this outbreak, but the hospital shareholders and taxpayers who paid the bill for it to be contained. Until we start counting up those costs as well, we won’t achieve an honest accounting of vaccine refusal’s true price.

BIG_DADDY
06-14-2011, 10:43 AM
Yes, because movie critics are the best people to ask about cancer treatment.

It was the grand juries questioning and factual data reviewed but lets not pretend that you even remotely care. Ever since you got your vagina all bruised over wanting to let trannies adopt kids you have been the ultimate contrarian following me around the BB in every thread I post trying to make fun. You're the ultimate loser personified Brock. Take your Brockism's and all your issues with you and don't let the door hit you on the way out. As rarely as I post anymore I find it amazing that every time I do you are right there with another Brockism. Get a life.

Brock
06-14-2011, 10:46 AM
It was the grand juries questioning and factual data reviewed but lets not pretend that you even remotely care. Ever since you got your vagina all bruised over wanting to let trannies adopt kids you have been the ultimate contrarian following me around the BB in every thread I post trying to make fun. You're the ultimate loser personified Brock. Take your Brockism's and all your issues with you and don't let the door hit you on the way out. As rarely as I post anymore I find it amazing that every time I do you are right there with another Brockism. Get a life.

I don't think you understand what a "grand jury" at a film festival does.

You have turned into a giant crybaby. That's why it is so much fun to point and laugh at you. If you're too much of a pussy to take it, just put me on ignore.

Ace Gunner
06-14-2011, 10:47 AM
oh holy hell, don't do that on my acct. look, the bottom line here is chemo is used too much & since we are still learning about cancer & treatment, it would b wise to try every damn thing under the sun. now as far as relying on the gov't to decide - I defer to statement part "since we are still learning about cancer" meaning if the gov't has the answer, then wtf are we waiting on here.. there's an easy way to kill a company's shady profits - let others know. that's all. that's how the world got to this point, b4 the gov't became intrusive. nowadays, it's a trillion times easier & faster way to communicate fakes - the www

trndobrd
06-14-2011, 10:47 AM
For those who actually watched the mountain of absurdaties and the incestuous nature of the FDA exposed by this film it is really was eye opening, which was my point. I liked the quote by the head of the FDA where he said he they will never approve anything that is not brought to them by a big pharmaceutical company with unlimited resourses. It is really easy to see why if you actually watched the film.


If this treatment is effective, or even promising, why hasn't a pharmaceutical company or biomed research company given Buryznski a mountain of cash, expanded the research, and run studies for FDA approval? Is there not a market for a drug that would seemingly cure cancer?

BIG_DADDY
06-14-2011, 10:50 AM
I'll dedicate the rest of the day to it, and return with a full report.

Meanwhile, for those who don't appreciate the costs of another quack approach to medicine, immunization refusal.



Every once in a while, there’s news of a measles outbreak. On the surface, they don’t involve large numbers of cases — there’s one in Minneapolis right now that has racked up 21 cases (http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/idepc/diseases/measles/) so far — and so people seem to wonder why these outbreaks are such a big deal.

Here’s one reason why: Measles transmission within the US stopped in 2000 because of vaccination. Outbreaks here start with an importation from somewhere else where the disease still flourishes — but they gain a foothold because lack of vaccination, primarily from vaccine refusal, lets the disease get past what should be an impregnable barrier of herd immunity to attack those who are too young to be vaccinated or whose immunity has faded.

Here’s another reason: Stopping the measles virus before it can cause serious disease — and by “serious,” I mean deafness, pneumonia, encephalitis and miscarriage — is incredibly costly and labor-intensive. An account published overnight in the Journal of Infectious Diseases (http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/04/25/infdis.jir115.abstract) gives a glimpse at just how costly. To stop a 14-person outbreak that began with one unvaccinated tourist visiting a US emergency room, the Arizona Department of Health had to track down and interview 8,321 people; seven Tucson hospitals had to furlough staff members for a combined 15,120 work-hours; and two hospitals where patients were admitted spent $799,136 to contain the disease.


Here’s how the outbreak unfolded:

In February 2008, a 37-year-old Swiss woman who had never been vaccinated against measles arrived in Tucson after a visit to Mexico. She developed breathing problems and a rash and went to a local hospital’s emergency room. They suspected she had a viral illness and admitted her.
Here’s what you have to know, to understand what happened next. Measles is extremely contagious; up to 90 percent of unvaccinated people who are exposed to it will get it. And if someone nearby has it, you will get exposed — because coughed-out measles virus can travel across a room, and hangs in the air for hours. The best protection against spreading measles in a hospital is putting someone in a negative-pressure isolation room, which is engineered so no air can leak out into the rest of the hospital. It took two days to get the Swiss tourist into isolation, because measles is rare enough in the US that it was not the hospital personnel’s first thought.

Meanwhile:

A 50-year-old woman who had spent an hour in the ER at the same time as the Swiss woman caught the disease from her. Patient 2 got taken care of, went home, and started feeling feverish nine days later. She had difficulty breathing and thought at first she was having an asthma attack, so she went back to the hospital and was admitted for two days. That she had measles would not be discovered until six days after that.
While she was in the hospital, Patient 2 unknowingly infected a 41-year-old health care worker who took care of her — and who was scheduled to get a measles-vaccine booster shot that very day, because the hospital was also caring for the tourist. Patient 2 also passed measles to an unvaccinated 11-month-old boy who was in the same ER while she was waiting to get checked for asthma, and to two unvaccinated siblings — 3 and 5 years old — who were visiting their mother on the same hospital floor after Patient 2 was admitted.

Patient 3, the health-care worker, passed measles to a 47-year-old woman in her emergency department — who later ended up in an intensive care unit with measles pneumonia — and later to a 41-year-old man in his home. Patient 4, the toddler, gave the virus to an unvaccinated 1-year-old while they were both in the same pediatrician’s office. Five other people were infected somewhere in their everyday lives: a 2-year-old boy who had never been vaccinated and who also ended up in an ICU with seizures brought on by high fever; a 9-month-old and an 8-month-old, also unvaccinated; and two adults, 35 and 37, who might have gotten one dose as children, but had no documentation of receiving a second dose.

Those 14 are just the confirmed cases. In addition to them, there were 363 suspected ones, and today’s paper makes clear authorities believe there were more illnesses than they know. And for every known case, there were dozens or hundreds of exposed people who had to be checked: 145 passengers on the tourist’s flight from Mexico, 1,795 patients in the ER that treated Patient 2, 25 people who attended church with Patient 7, 10 kids in the same day care center as Patient 8.

There’s an important dimension to this outbreak that may not be evident at first. We tend to blame parents who hold their kids back from vaccination for breaches in the wall of herd immunity. But the people who were infected in this outbreak and shared responsibility for passing it on included adult health care workers who had never been vaccinated and who had missed or declined the chance to get booster shots. By doing that, they put their unknowing patients at risk — and infected, among others, someone with brain cancer and another person living with Down syndrome.

When the hospitals checked to see who among their staff wasn’t vaccinated, they found that 30 percent didn’t know or couldn’t prove it. The two hospitals where measles patients were cared for actually did blood tests on their staff, and found that 9 percent were non-immune: never-vaccinated, never-infected. If the hospitals had not acted to identify those employees and send them home or vaccinate them, they could have hosted a roaring epidemic that might have been impossible to contain.

We can argue endlessly, and do, about people who refuse vaccination for themselves or their children. Under law, they have the right to take that risk. But what this Arizona outbreak makes clear is how many more people are forced to assume that risk without being consulted: not only the infants, elderly and immune-compromised among those 8,321 people exposed in this outbreak, but the hospital shareholders and taxpayers who paid the bill for it to be contained. Until we start counting up those costs as well, we won’t achieve an honest accounting of vaccine refusal’s true price.

True price? What do you think the price is for the 42 vaccine schedule and the constant updates to stay on schedule not to mention all of the disorders associated with them? Give me a break dude. I posted an article awhile back about Ashland Oregon where more than half the kids have never had a vaccine and I would guess the vast majority of adults have not had any since childhood. There are no issues there brother. Forced inoculation is insane, I can't even believe you of all people would condone it. Anyways, back to work.

BIG_DADDY
06-14-2011, 10:50 AM
If this treatment is effective, or even promising, why hasn't a pharmaceutical company or biomed research company given Buryznski a mountain of cash, expanded the research, and run studies for FDA approval? Is there not a market for a drug that would seemingly cure cancer?

Watch the film

Ace Gunner
06-14-2011, 10:53 AM
If this treatment is effective, or even promising, why hasn't a pharmaceutical company or biomed research company given Buryznski a mountain of cash, expanded the research, and run studies for FDA approval? Is there not a market for a drug that would seemingly cure cancer?

you musta missed the part where the FDA trialed it and found nothing medically or nutritionally beneficial.

furthermore the market for cancer treatment is so huge now, it is a significant part of our GDP. sick. ya. cure. no.

Amnorix
06-14-2011, 11:02 AM
True price? What do you think the price is for the 42 vaccine schedule and the constant updates to stay on schedule not to mention all of the disorders associated with them? Give me a break dude. I posted an article awhile back about Ashland Oregon where more than half the kids have never had a vaccine and I would guess the vast majority of adults have not had any since childhood. There are no issues there brother. Forced inoculation is insane, I can't even believe you of all people would condone it. Anyways, back to work.

No one would expect the town to drop dead within weeks, months or even years of not being immunized. To refuse immunizaiton is not to be instantly sick, or perhaps ever sick. But the more the herd of humanity is refusing immunization, the more these diseases will spring back, attacking not only those who refused immunization, but those who have been immunized but are yet susceptible, for whatever reason, or those who have not yet been immunized (infants, etc.).

That which you preach affects not only you and yours, but potentially the rest of us.

Is there an explanation for the elimination, essentially, of mumps, smallpox, measles, polio, whooping cough and the many, many other diseases that have killed, maimed or caused brain damage to millions of humans over the millenia?

I suppose in 20 years if these diseases, many of which are practically forgotten to modern medicine, have been a comeback, then those of us who warned not that immunizations were risk-free, but rather that they were GREATLY LESS RISKY THAN NO IMMUNIZATION, will be able to say I-told-you-so, but that isn't even a hollow victory, it's a defeat for humanity.

Maybe you're right. I hope you are. That's a better result for everyone. But simple common sense, much less the vast majority of research, strongly suggests you're wrong.

Hell, George Washington was using inoculations on the Contentinental Army in 1776... It saved his army from being destroyed by contagions.

Ace Gunner
06-14-2011, 11:16 AM
a quick study of tobacco reveals pretty much every aspect of cancer cure versus treatment & it's relation to gov't. they don't actually "cure" the lung cancer problem at all, but they have every entent on treatment using taxpayer $ on it. the gov't now reserves the right to punish whomever attempts suicide - except for those who choose drugs such as tobacco & alcohol, which they regulate knowing full well each substance is or contributes to certain cancer death - without treatment.

trndobrd
06-14-2011, 11:21 AM
you musta missed the part where the FDA trialed it and found nothing medically or nutritionally beneficial.

furthermore the market for cancer treatment is so huge now, it is a significant part of our GDP. sick. ya. cure. no.


So, like the water powered car, the claim is that the FDA and pharmaceutical companies are threatened by THE CURE.

However unlikely, assume for a moment that the profits from current treatments are greater than the profits from a proven cure. Not all pharmaceutical companies are based in the US. Even US owned companies do business and research in other countries. Not every pharmaceutical company markets chemo or radiation treatments. So the question remains, what is to stop a biochem research company that is not currently involved in cancer treatment or research from picking this up, doing some studies and research in El Salvador and start manufacturing in China?

Another point, this guy is being portrayed as some sort of hero. If his treatment really does work, why has he not publicly shared the research? He holds several patents for THE CURE, but chooses to let people around the world die rather than allow doctors around the world duplicate the treatment.

Amnorix
06-14-2011, 11:26 AM
a quick study of tobacco reveals pretty much every aspect of cancer cure versus treatment & it's relation to gov't. they don't actually "cure" the lung cancer problem at all, but they have every entent on treatment using taxpayer $ on it. the gov't now reserves the right to punish whomever attempts suicide - except for those who choose drugs such as tobacco & alcohol, which they regulate knowing full well each substance is or contributes to certain cancer death - without treatment.

You may recall that the United States tried to eliminate alcohol consumption in this country over a period of more than 10 years. The effort was an utter failure.

Smoking, like alcohol, is ingrained in our culture. As such, it would also be difficult to eradicate. Instead, we have opted to try to educate, and punitively tax, the use of cigarettes to discourage consumption.

Lzen
06-14-2011, 02:55 PM
So, like the water powered car, the claim is that the FDA and pharmaceutical companies are threatened by THE CURE.

However unlikely, assume for a moment that the profits from current treatments are greater than the profits from a proven cure. Not all pharmaceutical companies are based in the US. Even US owned companies do business and research in other countries. Not every pharmaceutical company markets chemo or radiation treatments. So the question remains, what is to stop a biochem research company that is not currently involved in cancer treatment or research from picking this up, doing some studies and research in El Salvador and start manufacturing in China?

Another point, this guy is being portrayed as some sort of hero. If his treatment really does work, why has he not publicly shared the research? He holds several patents for THE CURE, but chooses to let people around the world die rather than allow doctors around the world duplicate the treatment.

You should watch the video. I was a little skeptical, too. But there were a bunch of people that came to his defense. The gov't spent years and millions of $$ to try and stop this guy. Watch the vid all the way through and you'll find out why. There is a lot of evidence in this that has me just about convinced. And make no mistake, I'm no conspiracy theory believer. I think the 911 truthers are morons and I feel the same about the people that believe the moon landing in 1969 was faked.

Backwards Masking
06-14-2011, 10:36 PM
Not trying to sound like a nut but the FDA approved Apartame for public consumption almost 30 years ago and that stuff is literally poison. Billions and billions served, with billions more on the horizon. Of course, Diet drinks have made a fortune, which helps the economy. Thing is, we don't necessarliy need to the economy to survive. We do need our brains and bones though, something aspartame destroys beyond a scientific doubt.

Backwards Masking
06-14-2011, 10:47 PM
You guys can trash Big Daddy all you want. Hospitals in this country are a Business, which pays taxes and contributes to the econonmy. Hospitals main customers are the Sick and Dying. Without Sick & Dying people, the hospitals don't make as much money, don't pay as much taxes, don't support the econonmy nearly as much. It's profitable to the hospitals for the general population to be sick, and even more profitable for them to be Dying. Anyone know how much cold card cash a cancer patient who stays in the hospital for say, a year, before croaking brings in? Know what percentage of that profit goes to the government to help support the economy? Who funds the FDA? The government.

So why would the government, trillions in debt, have one of their own institutions help destroy one of the most profitable industries in the country by taking away their main clients? They wouldn't. Wouldn't be good business. And cancer, my friends, is some BIG mf'in business.

CrazyPhuD
06-14-2011, 10:58 PM
Not trying to sound like a nut but the FDA approved Apartame for public consumption almost 30 years ago and that stuff is literally poison. Billions and billions served, with billions more on the horizon. Of course, Diet drinks have made a fortune, which helps the economy. Thing is, we don't necessarliy need to the economy to survive. We do need our brains and bones though, something aspartame destroys beyond a scientific doubt.

You are welcome to make whatever statements you choose, BUT if you want to make a statement such as this, you need to actually support this. Spending all of 5 minutes online looking for sources indicates that your claim appears to be unsound.

For instance the ever popular debunking site snopes has a listing of the 'controversy'

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp

Listed within a couple of the links is a publication.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1541-4337.2006.tb00081.x/pdf

and

probably a more digestible report for many people.

http://www.acsh.org/docLib/20060417_sugar_web.pdf

Or a simple but not particularly scientific time article about the original hoax.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,990167,00.html

So if you believe you have credible independent scientific studies that support your opinion than by all means share them. But if you don't then please do us all a favor and quit spreading around internet chain e-mails......

Backwards Masking
06-14-2011, 11:10 PM
Check out the documentary Apartame : Sweet Misery, Poisoned World. Those credited scientists and the independent studies they conducted (back before aspartame was legal) come off as pretty sound to me. or, better yet You do us all favor and drink a 12 pack of apartame drinks a day for a few years so when you'll be the one developing brain cancer and you or your health insurance company can help the hospitals pay back our trillion dollar deficit and we won't have to read your internet chain mails. Not that I actually want that to happen to you or anyone else for that matter. Just trying to "support my opinion and share them" instead of talking smack so I can look smart to strangers on the web.

CrazyPhuD
06-14-2011, 11:42 PM
Check out the documentary Apartame : Sweet Misery, Poisoned World. Those credited scientists and the independent studies they conducted (back before aspartame was legal) come off as pretty sound to me. or, better yet You do us all favor and drink a 12 pack of apartame drinks a day for a few years so when you'll be the one developing brain cancer and you or your health insurance company can help the hospitals pay back our trillion dollar deficit and we won't have to read your internet chain mails. Not that I actually want that to happen to you or anyone else for that matter. Just trying to "support my opinion and share them" instead of talking smack so I can look smart to strangers on the web.

ROFL....dude I don't ever NEED to look smart, there is an age old philosophy that is true, if you have to tell someone you're smart you're not. Mostly I am trying to educate people to look beyond what people tell you and do your own research using high quality scientific resources.

What I am trying to do is encourage people to NOT just believe what documentary X or person Y told you, but to then go back and look at the sources they quote and ask your self if it is actually true. Clearly you haven't done that. You saw documentary X and you believed them, great that's what they wanted you to do. What most people don't get is that many documentaries don't actually want you to think, they just want you to believe.

Short of those done by PBS and maybe National Geographic here or say the BBC overseas most of the time Documentaries are completely biased and don't treat the material with an even hand. I watch most likely more than most people because I use netflix and about the only thing that's interesting on it is documentaries. But I don't delude myself into believing that they are really telling me the truth. Often times they are not, they are presenting only the 'truth' as they want it to be heard and they will use poor references and misleading presentation to make their point. A documentary generally isn't a factual presentation. It's a marketing journey in trying to convince you that their point is valid.

Clearly that aspartame documentary has succeeded with you, just as the other documentary has succeeded with Big Daddy. The problem is you shouldn't have stopped at watching the documentary, it should have spawned you to want to learn more. BUT when you learn more you have to always judge the quality of your sources. There are many people that claim to be experts but really aren't. There are even people that look like experts or even WERE experts but have turned mildly wacko on a view point. That's why it is always important to try to find independent sources, ones by many credible sources. It's not hard to fool one person, no matter how smart they are. BUT it is quite a bit harder to fool a bunch of smart people especially when they are experts in their field.

That is the essence of peer review in the scientific communities, you get a group of smart 'experts' in their field to look at a publication and see if they agree with the methodology and the analysis. If they agree that it is sound then it gets published. A peer reviewed publication has more weight because it's not just one person saying it looks good, it's a group of experts saying that it's quality. The odds that it's wrong are lower.

Now the one challenge with peer review is that it's always possible that an extreme but correct view point could be suppressed because people just don't believe it's possible. That is pretty damn rare, because there are always more publications to submit to and if you get one publication that is too closed minded then there are likely many others you can submit to and some group will be open minded enough to admit you might be right.

In short I ask people to ask to draw conclusions not on what people think but on what science can actually prove. This isn't religion and this isn't about faith, this is about facts and supporting evidence and you either have them or you don't. So if you really believe the aspartame documentary then by all means look up their sources. Read them and ask if you agree with them and then post up the sources here for people to comment on them.

It will generally not be hard to evaluate if that source is credible or not. That's what it means to be educated about an issue. It's not about watching documentaries, it's not about reading websites. It's about going to primary sources, the actual studies done and read them to see if you understand them and agree with them. Then you can cite real sources in your arguments.

I understand reading scientific papers can be a chore, but if you really want to understand something you really need to go there. That is really what I ask people to do, check sources, check facts and do your own homework before spreading rumors that way you can really be educated about an issue and it will be much harder to fool you in the future. No matter how smart someone may be and how good they might look always, always doubt them, unless they can support their view with facts. Independence matters too, if you know what you are doing it's not hard to corrupt data and make it look like something it's not. It's why an experiment repeated by someone independent to you has MUCH more weight than a solitary one.

Backwards Masking
06-15-2011, 12:30 AM
I completely agree with everything you just wrote, i really do. I defintely don't trust one source on any occasion. Based on what I've read on aspartame I choose not to consume it. You think it's safe, more power to you. Drink up. History and Science have proven the FDA to be wrong on a myriad of occasions. History and Science will continue to prove it wrong on even more in the future. Wanna lecture me on how I didn't post a link proving they were wrong at least once and say "You didn't present credited sources" go ahead. It's easy to write paragraph after paragraph dressing up your only real point which is "there's two sides to every story." One I happen to agree with.

That said, do you disagree with my post you purposely ignored where I stated our county is trillions in debt? Or is that just a rumor spreading chain mail with corrupted data that I can't scientifically prove?

Do you disagree that the Health Care system is a business? Or haven't I viewed the unbiased facts from sources on either side of the argument on that one either?

Do you disagree that a great portion of the money generated by hospitals goes to paying off our debt? Or am not educated enough on that particular issue to say?

MagicHef
06-15-2011, 04:19 AM
I'll dedicate the rest of the day to it, and return with a full report.

Meanwhile, for those who don't appreciate the costs of another quack approach to medicine, immunization refusal.



Every once in a while, there’s news of a measles outbreak. On the surface, they don’t involve large numbers of cases — there’s one in Minneapolis right now that has racked up 21 cases (http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/idepc/diseases/measles/) so far — and so people seem to wonder why these outbreaks are such a big deal.

Here’s one reason why: Measles transmission within the US stopped in 2000 because of vaccination. Outbreaks here start with an importation from somewhere else where the disease still flourishes — but they gain a foothold because lack of vaccination, primarily from vaccine refusal, lets the disease get past what should be an impregnable barrier of herd immunity to attack those who are too young to be vaccinated or whose immunity has faded.

Here’s another reason: Stopping the measles virus before it can cause serious disease — and by “serious,” I mean deafness, pneumonia, encephalitis and miscarriage — is incredibly costly and labor-intensive. An account published overnight in the Journal of Infectious Diseases (http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/04/25/infdis.jir115.abstract) gives a glimpse at just how costly. To stop a 14-person outbreak that began with one unvaccinated tourist visiting a US emergency room, the Arizona Department of Health had to track down and interview 8,321 people; seven Tucson hospitals had to furlough staff members for a combined 15,120 work-hours; and two hospitals where patients were admitted spent $799,136 to contain the disease.


Here’s how the outbreak unfolded:

In February 2008, a 37-year-old Swiss woman who had never been vaccinated against measles arrived in Tucson after a visit to Mexico. She developed breathing problems and a rash and went to a local hospital’s emergency room. They suspected she had a viral illness and admitted her.
Here’s what you have to know, to understand what happened next. Measles is extremely contagious; up to 90 percent of unvaccinated people who are exposed to it will get it. And if someone nearby has it, you will get exposed — because coughed-out measles virus can travel across a room, and hangs in the air for hours. The best protection against spreading measles in a hospital is putting someone in a negative-pressure isolation room, which is engineered so no air can leak out into the rest of the hospital. It took two days to get the Swiss tourist into isolation, because measles is rare enough in the US that it was not the hospital personnel’s first thought.

Meanwhile:

A 50-year-old woman who had spent an hour in the ER at the same time as the Swiss woman caught the disease from her. Patient 2 got taken care of, went home, and started feeling feverish nine days later. She had difficulty breathing and thought at first she was having an asthma attack, so she went back to the hospital and was admitted for two days. That she had measles would not be discovered until six days after that.
While she was in the hospital, Patient 2 unknowingly infected a 41-year-old health care worker who took care of her — and who was scheduled to get a measles-vaccine booster shot that very day, because the hospital was also caring for the tourist. Patient 2 also passed measles to an unvaccinated 11-month-old boy who was in the same ER while she was waiting to get checked for asthma, and to two unvaccinated siblings — 3 and 5 years old — who were visiting their mother on the same hospital floor after Patient 2 was admitted.

Patient 3, the health-care worker, passed measles to a 47-year-old woman in her emergency department — who later ended up in an intensive care unit with measles pneumonia — and later to a 41-year-old man in his home. Patient 4, the toddler, gave the virus to an unvaccinated 1-year-old while they were both in the same pediatrician’s office. Five other people were infected somewhere in their everyday lives: a 2-year-old boy who had never been vaccinated and who also ended up in an ICU with seizures brought on by high fever; a 9-month-old and an 8-month-old, also unvaccinated; and two adults, 35 and 37, who might have gotten one dose as children, but had no documentation of receiving a second dose.

Those 14 are just the confirmed cases. In addition to them, there were 363 suspected ones, and today’s paper makes clear authorities believe there were more illnesses than they know. And for every known case, there were dozens or hundreds of exposed people who had to be checked: 145 passengers on the tourist’s flight from Mexico, 1,795 patients in the ER that treated Patient 2, 25 people who attended church with Patient 7, 10 kids in the same day care center as Patient 8.

There’s an important dimension to this outbreak that may not be evident at first. We tend to blame parents who hold their kids back from vaccination for breaches in the wall of herd immunity. But the people who were infected in this outbreak and shared responsibility for passing it on included adult health care workers who had never been vaccinated and who had missed or declined the chance to get booster shots. By doing that, they put their unknowing patients at risk — and infected, among others, someone with brain cancer and another person living with Down syndrome.

When the hospitals checked to see who among their staff wasn’t vaccinated, they found that 30 percent didn’t know or couldn’t prove it. The two hospitals where measles patients were cared for actually did blood tests on their staff, and found that 9 percent were non-immune: never-vaccinated, never-infected. If the hospitals had not acted to identify those employees and send them home or vaccinate them, they could have hosted a roaring epidemic that might have been impossible to contain.

We can argue endlessly, and do, about people who refuse vaccination for themselves or their children. Under law, they have the right to take that risk. But what this Arizona outbreak makes clear is how many more people are forced to assume that risk without being consulted: not only the infants, elderly and immune-compromised among those 8,321 people exposed in this outbreak, but the hospital shareholders and taxpayers who paid the bill for it to be contained. Until we start counting up those costs as well, we won’t achieve an honest accounting of vaccine refusal’s true price.

So 8305 out of the 8321 people exposed were properly immunized (using the article's 90% contraction rate among exposed non-immunized people)? I highly doubt it.

Also, is this whole thing really about $800,000? If we force everyone to comply completely with the entire vaccine schedule, do you think it's possible that we could break a million per year?

Thirdly, I really thought that it was common practice to provide a link to copied articles.

Ace Gunner
06-15-2011, 06:39 AM
So, like the water powered car, the claim is that the FDA and pharmaceutical companies are threatened by THE CURE.

However unlikely, assume for a moment that the profits from current treatments are greater than the profits from a proven cure. Not all pharmaceutical companies are based in the US. Even US owned companies do business and research in other countries. Not every pharmaceutical company markets chemo or radiation treatments. So the question remains, what is to stop a biochem research company that is not currently involved in cancer treatment or research from picking this up, doing some studies and research in El Salvador and start manufacturing in China?

Another point, this guy is being portrayed as some sort of hero. If his treatment really does work, why has he not publicly shared the research? He holds several patents for THE CURE, but chooses to let people around the world die rather than allow doctors around the world duplicate the treatment.

I don't have all the answers to this, it'sa complex deal & I haven't looked further into this man's work than what's already been discussed. when somebody saves somebody else's life, they are a hero, at least to somebody..

to my knowledge, no drug co's mfr in america. none. there are many reasons pharm co do not mfr within america. 1 is cheep labor in puerto rico, 2 is regs, 3 is they had counterfeit/theft problems in the past, 4 is politically they want to prop up other economies to gain political control of other populations... long list of reasons. consider nike shoes employs half million ppl in vietnam/asia..

pharm co's have aids drugs and do not give special treatment to africans, who make up the majority of aids cases worldwide. there are political reasons motivating this.

Ace Gunner
06-15-2011, 07:12 AM
You may recall that the United States tried to eliminate alcohol consumption in this country over a period of more than 10 years. The effort was an utter failure.

Smoking, like alcohol, is ingrained in our culture. As such, it would also be difficult to eradicate. Instead, we have opted to try to educate, and punitively tax, the use of cigarettes to discourage consumption.

prohibition never worx, I think we agree. but educating children on drug use with a program run by cops instead of doctors is slanderous if not ineffective. courts & cops are running this health problem. there is no effect here, scare tactix reach kids that would not take a drug abuse path, but do lil to nothing otherwise. our prisons are packed with nonviolent drug abusers. california's prison budget exceeds it's DOE budget. we incarcerate at a higher rate than anyone else on the planet.

many kids get involved with sales early on for income & do not consume drugs. they sell to older kids. certainly we have a drug abuse problem in america. alcohol is destroying hundreds of families daily. our drug policy is a failure to say the least. we could do much better, but we won't unless we put health professionals in charge of the problem. at this point, I don't think that will ever happen again. this is an area america has been programmed to fail. by design, it is an objective that is being satisfied. it consumes half our budget, which satisfies the programmed failure of america, the country.

I don't have a problem with ppl choosing drug abuse death. I believe that is a right, an american right. I believe in a person's right to choose death. I am opposed to regulation of life in this way. it'sa huge waste of taxpayer $ to prohibit drug use. we can help some discover their future of drug abuse b4 it occurs using medical pros & programs etc, but we cannot expect to change the course of all young americans.

smoking tobacco can b "cured" b4 users begin, in most cases. it just isn't funded. there is no program in place & there are no health pros running it. it'sa nasty habit that is perhaps the most addictive. I've quit. twice. takes great will. best to never start.

Amnorix
06-15-2011, 07:19 AM
You guys can trash Big Daddy all you want. Hospitals in this country are a Business, which pays taxes and contributes to the econonmy. Hospitals main customers are the Sick and Dying. Without Sick & Dying people, the hospitals don't make as much money, don't pay as much taxes, don't support the econonmy nearly as much. It's profitable to the hospitals for the general population to be sick, and even more profitable for them to be Dying. Anyone know how much cold card cash a cancer patient who stays in the hospital for say, a year, before croaking brings in? Know what percentage of that profit goes to the government to help support the economy? Who funds the FDA? The government.

So why would the government, trillions in debt, have one of their own institutions help destroy one of the most profitable industries in the country by taking away their main clients? They wouldn't. Wouldn't be good business. And cancer, my friends, is some BIG mf'in business.

Cancer or not, there will always be many who are sick, and everyone dies eventually. Hard to fathom such a grand conspiracy being successfully kept under wraps. Thousands of people would have to be "in" on this, in both government and privacy industry, and keep their mouths shut.

Meanwhile, you can barely get two people around here to agree on whether water is wet.

Amnorix
06-15-2011, 07:22 AM
You should watch the video. I was a little skeptical, too. But there were a bunch of people that came to his defense. The gov't spent years and millions of $$ to try and stop this guy. Watch the vid all the way through and you'll find out why. There is a lot of evidence in this that has me just about convinced. And make no mistake, I'm no conspiracy theory believer. I think the 911 truthers are morons and I feel the same about the people that believe the moon landing in 1969 was faked.

I'll watch the video, but never underestimate the power of people who believe things that make no sense. They can look you straight in the eye and say with all honesty that the world definitely is flat, and because they believe it so firmly, you start to believe it.

Until you back up and realize it's nonsense.

Amnorix
06-15-2011, 07:25 AM
Thirdly, I really thought that it was common practice to provide a link to copied articles.

It is, and I'm pretty religious about it, but was rushed. Here's the link.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/04/cost-vaccine-refusal/

blaise
06-15-2011, 07:57 AM
It's conspiracy theory month around here.

BIG_DADDY
06-15-2011, 10:07 AM
You should watch the video. I was a little skeptical, too. But there were a bunch of people that came to his defense. The gov't spent years and millions of $$ to try and stop this guy. Watch the vid all the way through and you'll find out why. There is a lot of evidence in this that has me just about convinced. And make no mistake, I'm no conspiracy theory believer. I think the 911 truthers are morons and I feel the same about the people that believe the moon landing in 1969 was faked.

Well at least somebody actually watched the movie. There is tons of factual data in there. The positions held by the FDA are unreal. The process of going after somebody while you simultaneously get patents on their products was unbelievable.

BIG_DADDY
06-15-2011, 10:09 AM
I don't think you understand what a "grand jury" at a film festival does.

You have turned into a giant crybaby. That's why it is so much fun to point and laugh at you. If you're too much of a pussy to take it, just put me on ignore.

Really, that’s what you’re running with? The truth is your attitude changed completely the day I didn’t agree with you turning trannies into mommies and daddies and you have been showing your bruised vagina ever since. Now, even knowing the battle I am going through with cancer in my family you feel justified in saying I am crying if I post something on the subject. I really feel sorry for you dude, I hope your life gets better.

Brock
06-15-2011, 10:47 AM
Really, that’s what you’re running with? The truth is your attitude changed completely the day I didn’t agree with you turning trannies into mommies and daddies and you have been showing your bruised vagina ever since. Now, even knowing the battle I am going through with cancer in my family you feel justified in saying I am crying if I post something on the subject. I really feel sorry for you dude, I hope your life gets better.

I don't know anything about the battle you're going through with cancer in your family, and it doesn't have anything to do with this. I was making fun of you way back in your TWA flight 800 days, and also whenever you post a bunch of alpha dog BS, so let's not pretend that it has anything to do with your hatred of transgendered people.

I posted one line regarding your comment about how "grand juries" at a movie festival aren't really the people I'd listen to regarding cancer treatment, and you, as you typically do, overreacted. Lulz, for me at least, ensued. Get over it, you big baby.

Backwards Masking
06-15-2011, 11:36 AM
It's not a grand conspiracy Ammorix. Sick & Dying rake in lots of money for hospitals, hospitals pay 33 percent of what they bring in taxes, those taxes help pay off the national debt. Pretty simple economics. Not conspiracy. If i make 30k healthy and working, that's 8-10k goes to Uncle Sam. If I'm sick year round and pay 100k plus (extremely generous #) in hospital fees, they pays Uncle Sam 30k. Am I wrong?

BIG_DADDY
06-15-2011, 11:41 AM
I don't know anything about the battle you're going through with cancer in your family, and it doesn't have anything to do with this. I was making fun of you way back in your TWA flight 800 days, and also whenever you post a bunch of alpha dog BS, so let's not pretend that it has anything to do with your hatred of transgendered people.

I posted one line regarding your comment about how "grand juries" at a movie festival aren't really the people I'd listen to regarding cancer treatment, and you, as you typically do, overreacted. Lulz, for me at least, ensued. Get over it, you big baby.

Yea because you live here, follow me around and it's well documented. You don't know anything. Cover up all you want Brock, we both know the truth about that and your little breakdown after the trannies to mommies program. There is nothing wrong with personal attacks and sizzle but when it’s all you bring to the table day in and day out, year end and year out is exposes you for what you really are. I know how important it is for you to feel like you’re a part of something though so I’ll let it go.

trndobrd
06-15-2011, 11:53 AM
I don't have all the answers to this, it'sa complex deal & I haven't looked further into this man's work than what's already been discussed. when somebody saves somebody else's life, they are a hero, at least to somebody..

to my knowledge, no drug co's mfr in america. none. there are many reasons pharm co do not mfr within america. 1 is cheep labor in puerto rico, 2 is regs, 3 is they had counterfeit/theft problems in the past, 4 is politically they want to prop up other economies to gain political control of other populations... long list of reasons. consider nike shoes employs half million ppl in vietnam/asia..

pharm co's have aids drugs and do not give special treatment to africans, who make up the majority of aids cases worldwide. there are political reasons motivating this.


There are plenty of pharmaceuticals manufactured in the US. Bayer and Sanofi-Aventis have manufacturing operations in Kansas City. But my point was that, if the gentleman's research is correct, any number of companies would be happy to pick up the ball and carry it into the world marketplace.

BTW, Puerto Rico is a US territory and falls under the same FDA regulation and federal minimum wage laws as the rest of America.

KC native
06-15-2011, 01:36 PM
Yea because you live here, follow me around and it's well documented. You don't know anything. Cover up all you want Brock, we both know the truth about that and your little breakdown after the trannies to mommies program. There is nothing wrong with personal attacks and sizzle but when it’s all you bring to the table day in and day out, year end and year out is exposes you for what you really are. I know how important it is for you to feel like you’re a part of something though so I’ll let it go.

This is a very BEPesque post. Keep it up you pussy beta male. ROFL

Brock
06-15-2011, 01:50 PM
Yea because you live here, follow me around and it's well documented. You don't know anything. Cover up all you want Brock, we both know the truth about that and your little breakdown after the trannies to mommies program. There is nothing wrong with personal attacks and sizzle but when it’s all you bring to the table day in and day out, year end and year out is exposes you for what you really are. I know how important it is for you to feel like you’re a part of something though so I’ll let it go.

Yeah, I live here, that must be why I only have a few thousand more posts than you do over the same amount of time. (7.77 posts per day to your 6.81 LOL) I'm sorry that I don't keep up with everything that's going on in your life and that I only post anything in your threads when you're lying about your friend being arrested and what for, recklessly refusing to vaccinate your kid and things like that. For such a big, tough, macho man that you comport yourself as, you sure do a lot of crying. Here's a deal: Stop posting stupid shit and I'll stop making fun of you for it.

Amnorix
06-15-2011, 02:00 PM
It's not a grand conspiracy Ammorix. Sick & Dying rake in lots of money for hospitals, hospitals pay 33 percent of what they bring in taxes, those taxes help pay off the national debt. Pretty simple economics. Not conspiracy. If i make 30k healthy and working, that's 8-10k goes to Uncle Sam. If I'm sick year round and pay 100k plus (extremely generous #) in hospital fees, they pays Uncle Sam 30k. Am I wrong?


Yeah, you're wrong.

First, many hospitals are non-profit institutions. In fact, it's the overwhelming majority --82% of them

In 2003, of the roughly 3,900 nonfederal, short-term, acute care general hospitals in the United States, the majority—about 62 percent—were nonprofit. The rest included government hospitals (20 percent) and for-profit hospitals (18 percent).<SUP id=cite_ref-0 class=reference>[1] (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/#cite_note-0)</SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_hospital

Second, some depressingly huge percentage of funds hospitals receive is from Medicare, which is government funding.

If you think hospitals are a NET profit center for the federal government, then you are dead flat wrong.

Backwards Masking
06-15-2011, 02:31 PM
You do realize Wikipedia and the statistics found there can be edited by anyone with a computer, right? And that's the best source you can come up with....

For discussions sake I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that Wikipedia is the honest to God truth as it pertains to government finance (though you and I both know I shouldn't). Why then do hospitals charge 50k (minimum) for an appedectomy that takes a few hours (tops) to perform? A few thousand for the staff, a few thousand for the facility, a few thousand for the insurance, 10-20 to protect against friviolous lawsuits (though I think that's what the insurance is for) and the rest goes...?. You're also counting government hospitals in your 82 percent Wikipedia stat. You really think they're doing that out of the kindness of their hearts with no kickbacks going upstairs? What about the 18 percent FOR PROFIT hospitals your stat admits to - am I dead flat wrong they aren't a net profit center? Or do they only perform voluntary procedures there, like plastic surgery?

I hope to hell I am dead flat wrong about this, and I also hope you can come up with something better than a wikipedia stat to back up your argument (especially one that's 8 years old). I'm not holding my breath though.

Ace Gunner
06-15-2011, 02:32 PM
There are plenty of pharmaceuticals manufactured in the US. Bayer and Sanofi-Aventis have manufacturing operations in Kansas City. But my point was that, if the gentleman's research is correct, any number of companies would be happy to pick up the ball and carry it into the world marketplace.

BTW, Puerto Rico is a US territory and falls under the same FDA regulation and federal minimum wage laws as the rest of America.


bayer's facility is agricultural plus r/d & the other closed:


Sanofi-aventis U.S. Announces Closure of Kansas City Manufacturing Site

Kansas City, MO- August 27, 2009 — Sanofi-aventis U.S. today announced that it will close its Kansas City, Mo. manufacturing site, which is expected to occur by mid-2012. The decision to close the site, which mainly makes solid dose forms of oral medications, is based on a North American decline in demand for products manufactured at this site.

Alain Peychaud, head of manufacturing for the Pharma Solids operations of sanofi-aventis said, “The site has an excellent performance record and the Kansas City community has been extremely supportive through the years. Ultimately, however, the decision was made based on a strong decline in demand.”

http://sanofi.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=255

so I still don't think there is much of a mfr base if at all, really. as for the claim of no market value, obviously you are correct. the question is why. it could b there is too much heet on this by the FDA or it could simply b as you claim - it isn't working. I don't see anything that sways me so far. I'll take a closer look later

Ace Gunner
06-15-2011, 02:37 PM
pbs is non profit. the ceo made 250k annually while I worked there like 20 years ago. granted it was the big city, but there was a stink made. the point is, non profit doesn't mean cheap services. insurance industry is the largest in the US - you think they might b running the show? I do

Backwards Masking
06-15-2011, 03:09 PM
That's right ChiefsFootballFan. You hear all this talk in media about how medical choices should be bewteen patients and their doctors. But if I've paid my health insurance premium for 30 plus years and I develop a specific cancer and the treatment option that sounds best for me isn't covered by my insurance, I can't have access to that treatment option because I'll have to pay for it out of my own pocket, which I can't afford to. Hence medical choices aren't made by the patients OR their doctors - their made by the f'in insurance companies - and not even on Wikipedia will you find a statistic claiming insurance companies aren't Net Profit Centers generating government revenue.

vailpass
06-15-2011, 03:17 PM
Right or wrong it is good there are people like Big Daddy that watch our regulatory agencies and question their actions.

Backwards Masking
06-15-2011, 03:22 PM
Yep. Whether you agree with Big Daddy or not, whether you like him or not, the fact that he goes out of his way to provide us with information and question his leaders actions make him ok in my book.

Amnorix
06-15-2011, 03:28 PM
You do realize Wikipedia and the statistics found there can be edited by anyone with a computer, right? And that's the best source you can come up with....

I have edited Wikipedia entries myself, so yes, I am familiar. But it's convenient and quick, and it's frankly more support than anything YOU have posted, which would be absolutely nothing at all...

For discussions sake I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that Wikipedia is the honest to God truth as it pertains to government finance (though you and I both know I shouldn't).

Why don't you find a better source then? Nobody is stopping you.

Why then do hospitals charge 50k (minimum) for an appedectomy that takes a few hours (tops) to perform? A few thousand for the staff, a few thousand for the facility, a few thousand for the insurance, 10-20 to protect against friviolous lawsuits (though I think that's what the insurance is for) and the rest goes...?. You're also counting government hospitals in your 82 percent Wikipedia stat. You really think they're doing that out of the kindness of their hearts with no kickbacks going upstairs? What about the 18 percent FOR PROFIT hospitals your stat admits to - am I dead flat wrong they aren't a net profit center? Or do they only perform voluntary procedures there, like plastic surgery?

I hope to hell I am dead flat wrong about this, and I also hope you can come up with something better than a wikipedia stat to back up your argument (especially one that's 8 years old). I'm not holding my breath though.

You dont' cite any support for anything, so you're hardly making me think I need to go find a treatise on the topic.

You also ignored my basic argument -- the federal and state governments pay out the ass through Medicare to have people in hospitals. Whether the for-profit, much less the non-profit, hospitals are themselves profitable isn't the question, is it -- the question is whether they represent a NET PROFIT for the government.

Or do you argue that Raytheon and Northrop Grumman generate net profits for the government because of the taxes they pay?

Amnorix
06-15-2011, 03:34 PM
I'm feeling unusually nice today so I've spent the ten seconds it took to find a better source than Wiki. Of course, you could've done this yourself, but you're either too lazy or too incompetent, so you decided instead to insult my source without presenting one of your own.

Here's my new source -- the American Hospital Association. http://www.aha.org/aha/resource-center/Statistics-and-Studies/fast-facts.html

I'll even do the math for you -- 998 for-profit hospitals / 5,795 registered hospitals = 17.22%.

Let me know if you need anything else.

http://www.mommyposh.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/feeding-baby-highchair.bmp

Ace Gunner
06-15-2011, 03:47 PM
oh, I forgot to let you know the min wage in PR is $4.10 which is nearly half what it is in most states. the point here is, it makes sense pharm co's do biz outta the US when this number is combined with low corporate taxes. just like every other mfr industry..

Backwards Masking
06-15-2011, 04:31 PM
Good job Ammorix, you've proved that hospitals don't necesarly make a net profit for the government in and of themselves with the data in the Credible link you provided. I was never ignoring that argument, don't know what gave you the impression i was. I'm pleased to hear that.

My original argument was that the Sick and Dying represent a great opportunity for the government to cash in on their illness by charging them ungodly amounts to combat thier illnesses. And despite making fun of my user name, my lack of finding other sources against your hostipal agruement myself (4 times) and the baby pic, You still have yet to prove I'm wrong in that respect.

So a lot of hospitals are funded by Medicare - but not all of them. What about the drugs the hospitals use? Those are made by private companies and ARE net profit centers for the government that helps pay off nat. debt. What about the insurance the hospitals pay for? Again, those are made by private companies that represent net profit centers for the government as well. Before you jump my sh*t about not looking up these stats (or my ability to do so), keep in mind there are hundreds of drug companies and thousands of insurance companies that supply these hospitals with these services, and different brances of different hostpials use a wide variety of them. Therefore, finding all the data to support this argument is going to be extremely difficult, if not flat out impossible. And that's the point - until all of these industries are done away and health care becomes universal (which I'm not condoning or condemning cause that's a whole other argument and I'm not opening that can of worms) THERE'S NO SURE WAY OF KNOWING WHETHER OR NOT THE SICK AND DYING ARE GOOD AND BAD FOR THE ECONOMY. I argue that they must be because, if they weren't, the govt. would figure out a way to make it that way, just like they figure out a way to get their roughly 33 percent from everything else. Again, I hope I'm wrong, and if you can prove me such I will admit to being so and thank you for it, just like I am thanking you for providing me with a better source than Wikipedia, which by the way i wasn't "insulting", (your word) simply questioning.

I do ask though that if you prove me wrong on the BIG argument, or just want to keep discussing this interesting topic, is there any way you can do so without resorting to name calling, mocking my intelligence and posting asinine pics?

BIG_DADDY
06-15-2011, 05:33 PM
Yeah, I live here, that must be why I only have a few thousand more posts than you do over the same amount of time. (7.77 posts per day to your 6.81 LOL) I'm sorry that I don't keep up with everything that's going on in your life and that I only post anything in your threads when you're lying about your friend being arrested and what for, recklessly refusing to vaccinate your kid and things like that. For such a big, tough, macho man that you comport yourself as, you sure do a lot of crying. Here's a deal: Stop posting stupid shit and I'll stop making fun of you for it.

I never lied about anything and there are tons of people not vaccinating their kids now. BTW, thanks for proving my point, you didn't have to do that.

alnorth
06-15-2011, 06:07 PM
My original argument was that the Sick and Dying represent a great opportunity for the government to cash in on their illness by charging them ungodly amounts to combat thier illnesses.

:spock:

You are a raving mad loon.

Typically when someone puts forth an insane theory, the burden of proof is upon them to prove it, not on the sane to disprove the insane.

Backwards Masking
06-15-2011, 06:27 PM
I didn't put forth the theory, this theory is supported in the documentary this thread is about.

alnorth
06-15-2011, 07:21 PM
I didn't put forth the theory, this theory is supported in the documentary this thread is about.

The theory is supported by a steaming pile of hilariously unbelievable crap.

Ignoring for a brief second that Medicare is going to freaking break us, here's a handy dandy rule of thumb to keep in mind. Maybe to a lesser degree a handy rule of thumb when evaluating new odd theories:

When something you believe in would be, if true, the biggest scandal in the history of our nation... chances are you are a gullible loon who has been taken in by the ravings of a nutjob.

Not to say that the biggest scandal in the history of our nation will never happen, inevitably something will qualify, but you are presuming an astonishly high number of evil people who are evil for no personal benefit (and actually evil to their eventual likely detriment, so stupid evil people), an astonishingly high number of stupid scientists outside our country who have no dog in this fight, an astonishing amount of apathy outside our country for a cancer cure, and an astonishing dearth of credible whistle-blowers.

This theory does not pass the giggle test. If you believe it, you are an incredibly gullible loon.