Slashdot Mirror
'Alternative Medicine' Clinic Attempts To Silence Critics
Asmodae writes "Stanislaw Burzynski runs a clinic specializing in an alternative cancer treatment called 'antineoplaston therapy,' and charges thousands of dollars for the privilege. Unfortunately, there's no scientific support for such treatment, and skeptics all over the web are raising red flags and trying to warn potential patients away. This includes high-school blogger Rhys Morgan, who has received legal threats from Burzynski's clinic for his efforts. Phil Plait summarizes the situation thus: 'In general, it’s a little unusual, to say the least, for a team doing medical research to sue someone for criticizing them. That’s because real science thrives on criticism, since it’s only through critiques that the potential errors of a particular method can be assessed — that’s why research is supposed to be published in peer-reviewed journals as well. Suing is the antithesis of that idea. ... I’ll note that the clinic has threatened to sue multiple people, including Peter Bowditch and Andy Lewis, two other bloggers who have criticized antineoplaston therapy.'"
Maybe we should ask Miss Information about this one.
I give you, Tim Michin's "Storm"
[...]And try as hard as I like,
A small crack appears
In my diplomacy-dike.
“By definition”, I begin
“Alternative Medicine”, I continue
“Has either not been proved to work,
Or been proved not to work.
You know what they call “alternative medicine”
That’s been proved to work?
Medicine.”[...]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U
http://xkcd.com/971/
Not usually a fan, but the caption is worthwhile: "...Telling someone who trusts you that you're giving them medicine, when you know you’re not, because you want their money, isn’t just lying--it’s like an example you’d make up if you had to illustrate for a child why lying is wrong."
Can dead people be happy?
Go, Streisand effect!
in its unproven effectiveness. Plus it's a big red pill, red pills always work better than other colors.
Burzynski is what you get when you breed a troll and a scammer.
Nerdy news for your nerdy needs? http://www.soylentnews.org Soylent News is people!
Dig them up and ask.
Seriously, do the quacks not realize that suing people will only draw attention to them?
Granted, they may well want that, since the more desperate-but-stupid people that hear about them, the more people they can fleece; but when you pretend to practice something vaguely medicine-like-but-not, it also doesn't hurt to stay below the FDA's radar.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience#Identifying_pseudoscience :
"A field, practice, or body of knowledge might reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research; but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms. [...] Examples of pseudoscience concepts, proposed as scientific when they are not scientific, are creation science, intelligent design, orgone energy, N-rays, ch'i, L. Ron Hubbard's engram theory, enneagram, iridology, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, New Age psychotherapies (e.g., rebirthing therapy), reflexology, applied kinesiology, astrology, biorhythms, facilitated communication, plant perception, extrasensory perception (ESP), Velikovsky's ideas, von Däniken's ideas, Sitchen's ideas, anthropometry, post-normal science, craniometry, graphology, metoposcopy, personology, physiognomy, acupuncture, alchemy, cellular memory, Lysenkoism, naturopathy, reiki, Rolfing, therapeutic touch, ayurvedic medicine, and homeopathy. Robert T. Carroll stated in part: "Pseudoscientists claim to base their theories on empirical evidence, and they may even use some scientific methods, though often their understanding of a controlled experiment is inadequate. Many pseudoscientists relish being able to point out the consistency of their ideas with known facts or with predicted consequences, but they do not recognize that such consistency is not proof of anything. It is a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition that a good scientific theory be consistent with the facts."
There must be some Federal Bureau Against Quacks, or something.
Dr Bob, DC has turned to the dark side.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Assuming they are alive, anyway. The shortest line is the line at the complaint window at a parachute factory.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
That's not really the issue here. The issue fundamentally isn't whether or not these lying quacks cure anybody or not, but rather whether real scientists are free to judge them by the scientific method. These lying quacks are trying to use the legal system to silence legitimate scientific inquiry into their scam.
That you're allowed to collect money from gullible morons if you can convince them of your quackery is not questioned, that you can try to hold the scientific community at bay through litigious behavior is.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
you guys should watch his documentary before forming an opinion.
I guess to some it's all the same. When you're facing the end you'd gladly pay for hope. Even if it's the false kind.
Although, if you're actually looking for medical treatment you'd gladly pay for an attorney yourself and shut that place down.
maybe he shots them up with opium? that would make them happy yes, but wouldn't cure their cancer.
the clinic doesn't seem to be doing research either. just selling a treatment.
no, wait, he's not selling treatment. technically he's selling participation in a clinical trial.... though there seems to have been so many patients already that if it was effective, I don't see any reason why he wouldn't release the data.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Ask Steve Jobs how it worked out for him?
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Here's the thing - he's a high school kid - under 18. WTF? Let'em sue! And then what? He shows up in court representing himself.
Then what? Unless that clinic has a shitload of cash to burn some teenager in court, what does the kid have lose? At most the judge saying, :"Kid, shut the fuck up. And repay the plaintiffs their legal costs." Maybe. More than likely the judge will just say, "STFU".
The "Clinic's" lawyers KNOW the kid can't cough up the money and more than likely neither can his parents - who don't have to anyway.
I say fuck'em kid!
Con artists already know by centuries that there's a somewhat "attention optimum": less than this, you'll lose profit; more than this, the cops arrive.
They should learn this little piece of popular wisdom...
Nerdy news for your nerdy needs? http://www.soylentnews.org Soylent News is people!
It started with Creation Science and then evolved into Climate Science Denialism and then evolved into Paul Ryan "Economics" so why should medicine be proven to work. I'm allowed to choose facts and if I don't like the ones that are available I can get the Heritage Foundation or one of the debate team to make some up for me. Same goes here.
Call me pessimistic, but documentaries do tend to be biased.
"this idea" is hardly an important consideration for people who are running scams^w clinics for as for-profit ventures.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I don't care if it's "medical" or not. Are his customers (patients) happy with his work? If not, they should be the ones suing and criticizing.
This blatant attempt to justify pseudoscience (and a poorle reasoned one) is given a 2, why? Isn;t this site for GEEKS, shouldn't the score be given in a more numerical, logical, VERIFIABLE way? Now, to the pseudoscience defender, following your reasoning, religion should be allowed to scam believers, we have no right to criticize because believers are happy to be victim of brainwashing? What about warning other people? Second, if they make claims, at least they don't label such empty claims as 'science'. How unaceptable is to ask for this basic common sense?
http://skepticalhumanities.com/2011/11/26/stanislaw-burzynskis-public-record/
Oh crap, now I'm gonna get sued! I shoulda posted AC
family members?
There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
Why would you watch a documentary to evaluate any claim, medical or otherwise? Let's see the peer-reviewed articles in recognized journals detailing out how the experiments were carried out and demonstrating the veracity of the claims.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
the law in the U.S. and the U.K and probably several countries as well is that it is ILLEGAL to even CLAIM that you can quotes cure cancer quotes.
one person who had some success with cancer treatment that did not involve pharmaceutical drugs mysteriously had his offices firebombed, received anonymous death threats that were not followed up by the police, and in the end was forced to move to mexico.
strangely (not really) he picked a piece of land that was specially surveyed at enormous cost for chemical toxicity levels, prior to purchase.
Medical Claims can be false and I would be the first question one's science. However; medicine is not the haunt of good science. It is ripe with all sorts of quacks who call themselves experts and have the credentials and blessing of others in the field. These always attack anyone with new or different treatments. Like the doctor a few years back who got attacked for saying he could cure stomach ulcers and reduce stomach cancer. We now know H. Pilori was the cause. He treated with antibiotics and was nearly run out of the profession. Get real. The standard of if someone is right isn't that they have no accusers. Is the guy in question right? Who Knows? But all of those he doesn't have FDA etc... The FDA still approves a deadly poison Methotrexate for treament of Cancer and for treatment of arthritis. Neither of which work and the untreated live longer. Think for a change.
I'm a cancer survivor. I'm also sympathetic, to a degree, to alternative medicines. But never for cancer! I have known a number of people who tried to treat their cancers through diet, herbs, acupuncture, and so on. Every one of them is dead. Every. Single. One. For cancer, you need the big guns, the heavy chemicals, the knives, the radiation. They leave lots and lots of collateral damage, but at least they have have a chance of keeping you alive for awhile longer.
So when I see people like Burzynski preying on frightened cancer patients and their families with their snake oil, it makes me see red.
No sig? Sigh...
I have to deal with one of these. Might actually be worse since they claim they can "cure" irreparably brain-damaged children. It breaks your heart to see parents carting their kids over there every day, driven by the cruel and false hope that they can make their child better. Like the guys in this story, the quacks threaten everyone who call them on their fraud.
However, I think it's better off NOT to blog about these types of people. The situations seem similar enough so I'll reveal one more cruel irony about the place near me. Every time someone (reporter, FDA, whoever) issues an article/report on the fact that this place can't cure anyone, the number of patients increases. People will do all sorts of things when traditional medicine tells them there's no hope, even if it kills them.
Seriously though, I hope there is a special, extra-hot circle in Hell for people who run these places.
Such as?
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
you guys should watch his documentary before forming an opinion.
Do I have to pay to watch it?
The dead don't complain much. This isn't being flippant. I personally knew a woman that took the 'alternative' road to 'cure' her breast cancer. It took four years to kill her.
They promised their blood 'filter' machine therapy would reverse the growth. They convinced her surgery was an unnecessary aberration of 'western' medicine, at a time when the 'western' surgeons offered at good prognosis for success. They fed here special diets, pills and all sorts of other stuff. The point of no return was eventually crossed and surgery was no longer an option.
There are a lot of quacks haunting Big Cancer because there is a lot of money sloshing around. All of the above was funded by employer provided insurance.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
The critic that you refer to made specific libelous claims. He isn't being sued because he's skeptical, he's being sued because he slandered a scientist by making claims of ill conduct. If the claimant had had any evidence of the scientist's ill conduct, he would have provided it, and thus (except in Britain) have walked away satisfied that he had taken down a climatologist. Instead, the claimant turned out to be a serial liar who had made false claims against other scientists.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
These lying quacks are trying to use the legal system to silence legitimate scientific inquiry into their scam.
Apparently the Scientology PR strategy has been licensed out for use in the medical field!
... appears to be engaged in one of the more repugnant types of theft and fraud that I can imagine: taking advantage of the painfully sick and dying.
And then trying to sue a kid for shedding light on their morally and ethically reprehensible activities?
I wonder if^w how often they go around kicking puppies...
Check your premises.
looks more like FDA and so on are doing dirty business to keep him down.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0ibsoqjPac
If the large majority of critics weren't journalists, laymen, politicians are old men with credentials who are employed via the Heartland Institute, you might have a point.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
There must be some Federal Bureau Against Quacks, or something.
There is.
See Lengthy Jail Sentence for Vendor of Laetrile -- A Quack Medication to Treat Cancer Patients. They finally nailed Jason Vale, the guy behind Laetrile, the apricot-pit "cancer cure". He did over 5 years in a Federal pen as prisoner #09073-067.
Maybe I am just playing devil's advocate, but you seem confident in calling Burzynski a quack. But I would assume your only evidence of calling Burzynski a quack is other people calling Burzynski a quack unless you have personal experience with Burzynski.
The fact is that the medical community as a whole has not cured cancer. Yet, the medical community supposedly decides what is the right way and wrong way of treating cancer patients. So outsiders, like Burzynski, face huge uphill battles in order to do anything different. Yet, something different than exists is what is needed to cure cancer.
As far as litigious behavior, let him threaten to sue. Maybe the truth will come out. I am sure if I posted all sorts of criticisms about my doctor that he did not believe were true, he would threaten to sue me too.
The rate of cancer survival in the medical industry is pretty bad ~ shouldn't the entire industry be criticized more?
--- We need more Ron Paul!
Not sure if it's the same documentary, but there's also one on Netflix, (I believe the titles is just "Burzynski" but it's been a while since I watched it). The show reeks of tinfoil hat conspiracy, and is obviously biased, but still worth the watching. As someone working in pharmaceutical development (posting anon since I'm at work), I find his ideas interesting. I have some serious doubts about the mechanism whereby his antineoplastons are having an effect, as well as doubts about the consistency of the manufacturing process he's using to make them (IIRC, these are a loosely-defined complex mix of molecules, unlike typical large-molecule biologics whose composition is much more tightly controlled). Still, I would like to see some more serious research done with these compounds; and I'm still open to the possibility that these antineoplastons are actually a viable treatment option.
Scientology goes after critics for decades and they are just fine.
How many times do you hear of a single person even having the means to sue a company?
Seriously. Hearing about this shit makes me see red. What sort of low-life, piece of shit assholes run this clinic? Not only are they scamming people who are extremely vulnerable (some of whom could potentially be helped and/or saved by real medical intervention), they have the unmitigated audacity to try to silence critics who would out them. This is beyond unacceptable. I think we all need to stand in solidarity with Rhys Morgan and let this asshole know what we think.
On that note: Fuck you, Stanislaw Burzynski, you lying, quack, fraudulent piece of shit. I hope you end up rotting in a prison cell for what you have done.
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
What critic is he referring to? That is to say, I could probably google it, but GP makes no mention of any particular case.
WTF are you talking about? For most cancers, five year survival rates have been steadily climbing for decades. The fact is that this guy is displaying all the traits of quackery; refusal to publish or even to co-operate with researchers, taking money directly from patients and now attempting to silence critics. If he had something real, he'd go through the accepted channels and right now would likely be getting ready to cash his first massive check from some Big Pharma company.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I'm the cornerstone of rationality for a good portion of my friends, so I found it no surprise when one emailed me requesting I watch a documentary called "Burzynski" (http://www.burzynskimovie.com/) and decide if the guy was a quack or really on to something.
I watched the documentary before researching anything about him and was genuinely intrigued. They present science and statistics in the movie and show how the gov't took some really (in retrospect) bonehead actions to prevent him from providing his therapy.
Then I looked up actual history and figured out that the guy is a quack. No one can replicate his results and he gets angry when they don't. He claims that all the independent trials are purposely done incorrect to his specifications.
But here's my problem: Fully aside from this guy being a genuine quack, why not just test his therapy fully and completely? Follow his specs and advice to the proverbial "T". Prove him wrong beyond a reasonable doubt and put an end to it.
this is very true. but it is very funny when you see that they took a rather objective approach. when you watch it make sure you watch the part where they reflect the other side.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0ibsoqjPac
because the so called peer reviewed seem to be not done properly... and yet ppl believe those peers...
The dark music when the big evil FDA is portrayed followed by rock n roll when showing his clinic pretty much sold me on the fact that he is a quack. "I'm just a little guy fighting a corrupt system" "Big pharma companies just want to silence me and they control the FDA."
his idea, have sick people drink the urine of healthy people to gain their health promoting molecules.
--sort of good idea except he has no actual science to back it up. Just a few people who got better and are convinced he did it. (and tons more who didn't get better)
Drinking pregnant horse urine does give you hormones that stave off hot flashes. Or you can buy the pharma preparation Premarin.
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski1.html
Pretty open and shut.
Burzynski is a fraud.
I say that as a real researcher (and research director.) The amount of work this man has done is PATHETIC. Even his supposed year-long lab experiment to get his "D.Msc (which didn't exist at the time,) has the shittiest documentation ever.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
If you need to sue your critics in order to sell your product, your product is useless.
To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
"The rate of cancer survival in the medical industry is pretty bad ~ shouldn't the entire industry be criticized more?" Isn't that like saying 'the rate of head gunshot wound survival is pretty bad, shouldn't the entire medical industry be criticized more?', or about Alzheimer's, or decapitation, etc. They're working on it. It is just that some things are easier to solve than others.
I was going to reply here and explain to you in a detailed and rational manner why your post was the dumbest thing I've read in weeks. Then I got to the bottom and read your signature and realized you were not the kind of person who would read and understand a rational argument, since as we all know, the free market will just magically solve all problems (except cancer, evidently that gets cured by some combination of stupidity and urine).
So instead, in the spirit of the free market, I've decided to offer my own cancer treatment. It's mostly just ice cream, pencil shavings and cyanide, but I've yet to receive a single complaint from anyone who's taken it, and not one of my patients has died of cancer.
I support this, as its Darwinism at its finest.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/04/21/bc-andrew-weaver-national-post-lawsuit.html
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I guess the ignorance is bliss excuse also explains your Ron Paul blather.
"That’s because real science thrives on criticism, since it’s only through critiques that the potential errors of a particular method can be assessed"
For some reason this is not the attitude taken towards critics of climate science.
... why aren't the guys who bundled crap mortgages into financial instruments in jail? Or any executives on Wall Street who lied to their clients?
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
You can tell by their funny bones.
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
Scientology goes after critics for decades and they are just fine.
They are a "religion", not medical treatment. Standards are much lower for religion.
"That you're allowed to collect money from gullible morons if you can convince them of your quackery is not questioned, that you can try to hold the scientific community at bay through litigious behavior is.".....I think you just described the modern drug industry.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
You talk about cancer as if it were the flu, some common viral infection that most people get every now and then and is a minor annoying blip in one's everyday routine. It's a radically different disease by virtue of the fact that it's your own cells gone rogue. I'm not saying it's beyond the realm of science-based medicine, I'm saying it's not a trivial problem to solve, yet the fact that modern medicine hasn't solved it somehow anoints alternative medicine--which has never empirically shown any effectiveness beyond what you'd see from placebo--as the savior?
The whole point of this article is that it's fine to try something "different", provided you follow a couple baseline rules: first, you go the peer-review route. You do a double-blind clinical trial, you perform the analysis and see that your method works significantly better than placebo and has improvements over the current state-of-the-art, and then you market it publicly. If (and this is a big "if") Burzynski is going this route, he's doing this step entirely backwards, which is ethically suspect at best. Second, you let the data speak for itself, not the lawyers. You sue people who slander you, not your work. If your work is being called into question, you debate it scientifically, just like in the peer-review process.
It's the fact that Burzynski is failing hard on these two points that's getting him into trouble, not the supposed shortcomings of the modern medical industry.
"I'd just like to emphasise that taking a million years isn't a metaphor here..." -Rich Bradshaw
I agree, but I'd draw the line at calling customers "gullible morons". I'd call them "desperate" more than anything. What's the worst this treatment could do? Kill you? You're dead already. These fraudsters should be exposed as the fraudsters they are, but I can't really blame their customers, because many are willing to try and pay just about anything if there's even a slim, outside chance it could give them even just a bit more time.
Please define cancer. You seem to be implying it is a single disease which can be cured if we find the "right" treatment. It is actually a term used to describe a very large set of diseases which usually have little in common apart from them all involving unregulated cell growth. And yes I am a researcher involved with anticancer drugs.
Hyperbole all you want, Viagra fucking works.
The person responsible for these legal threats is one Marc Stephens, who is not a lawyer. There is an excellent article on Boing Boing detailing Mr. Stephens' baseless threats.
I would hardly call the corporate whoring denalists, scientists.
Sorry, but society does have the right to shut down those who do harm by deceit. Your right to free speech does not extend to selling snake oil that does measurable harm.
As far as kemo and radiation, while hardly perfect, there are measurable and repeatable results confirming that these techniques improve the chances of survival. In this fraudster's case, random trials have shown that there is no such evidence.
Check your premises.
Some Euro teenybopper is not a scientist...come on.
If it's lawyer farts like a duck, it probably quacks and stinks as well.
Hopefully there's a special place in hell reserved for these jerks.
All the time, and winning, at that.
I suppose if you start from the supposition that you have no chance, things would seem a lot more bleak, but I'm not sure how much credit you want for giving up before you've even tried. No one gives points for that.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
... but then I started to have this horrible back pain, which got worse and worse. I started with the family doctor, then a specialist, X-Ray, MRI, other specialist... the conclusion was that I had a malformed vertebrae and there is not much to do about it. By then I could not stand, sit or lay for any longer time. It was recommended to start taking pain-killer or a regular basis, to avoid "remembering" the pain - even though I might not have it already. The downside to this, obviously is possible addiction to the pills.
At this point I had nothing to lose, I visited an "alternative medicine practitioner", who after a short examination suggested that I did not have any back problem, I needed some mineral supplement. Still very skeptical, but started to take it - at least it was not addictive and guaranteed no side-effects. Then my back pain was gone in less then a week. Coincidence? Maybe.
At an other time I had a sport-related injury. Visit to family doctor, X-Ray, etc. subscription medicine, with huge list of warnings of side-effects, most of them way more serious medical problems than the original injury and a promised recovery in 3-4 weeks. I decided to skip it. Instead visited the "alternative medicine practitioner" again, started to take "arnica" and my recovery took 2 days. Within a year the recommended prescription drug was pulled from the shelves, since it was causing too many heart attacks as a "side-effect".
Again,,, lucky coincidence? Maybe...
Burzynski wasn't just threatening to sue. They sent one blogger a photo of his house saying we know where you live. And they threatened the other blogger's family.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
The problem I've noticed with a lot of Libertarian arguments on topics like this is that they omit the biggest part of choice, which is information. Without informed choice, no good decisions can be made. If product A and product B are both supposed to cure missing limbs, but product A is a miracle pill that makes you regrow arms and legs and what-not and product B is a 2X4 with a nail in it, which would you choose? How would you know which to choose without information? How would you know that Product B is far inferior if the company were able to silence their critics like the "doctor" in this article?
Obviously, my example is hyperbole, but it was done to make a point. Without informed choice, there really is no valid choice.
I like how you a priori assume there can even be such a thing as cure for cancer. It's not like people aren't very, very hard at work on trying to understand cancer as much as possible.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
As someone working in pharmaceutical development (posting anon since I'm at work), I find his ideas interesting. I have some serious doubts about the mechanism whereby his antineoplastons are having an effect, as well as doubts about the consistency of the manufacturing process he's using to make them (IIRC, these are a loosely-defined complex mix of molecules, unlike typical large-molecule biologics whose composition is much more tightly controlled). Still, I would like to see some more serious research done with these compounds; and I'm still open to the possibility that these antineoplastons are actually a viable treatment option.
Okay, so one of the compounds mentioned on wikipedia is this one:
http://www.chemspider.com/Chemical-Structure.50771.html
which is at least drug-like (I can't find any hits in ChEMBL; haven't tried any other open databases). Another is just phenylacetylglutamine, which is 'just' a metabolite. Do you really think there is a reasonable justification for saying this molecule is active? If the guy uses a mixture of molecules, why not purify the most active ones?
(I do realise, of course, that you are not involved in Burzynski research - just curious for your opinion :)
We had some friends bring their daughter to this guy a few years ago. The only thing this guy helped was to relieve their savings and needlessly raise their hopes to no avail. The daughter died on schedule, just like the traditional phsyicians said she would. At best, it was a sad situation, at the worst, this guy is a crook trading you hope for your life savings, and not so much as a sincere I'm sorry at the end of it all.
I'm not against looking at alternatives but lets be realistic. Your physician isn't ignoring solutions to problems just because. I would be willing to bet that 99 out of 100 times, traditional medicine will be more successful when put up against holistic medicine.
The only instance I can find is when he filed a countersuit regarding a FOIA request trying to get private emails. It wasn't trying to silence dissent, that's just how you dispute a request.
Any others?
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
According to Dante, the lowest, deepest, circles of Hell that are reserved for the most terrible sins like treason are covered in ice and battered by cold cruel winds. Quack doctors and the like are forced to slog through a canal filled with shit, and every time they talk, shit comes out of their mouths.
His "clinical studies" don't have the proper controls, which means that they cannot produce anything more than anecdotal results. At my university, the ethics board would not approve any type of experiments on human subjects in such a situation; potential for scientific advancement is required to justify any risk.
At best it's a fishing trip, not a scientific study.
And saying so shouldn't lead to libel threats and I-know-where-you-live intimidation attempts.
His documentary has already been watched and ripped a new one.
Had he possessed an actual cure, he'd have multiple Nobel Prizes in Medicine.
This is pure bullshit.
Piss-doctor. That's his new name.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Quackwatch is an excellent place to start looking, they even have an article on Burzynski's "antineoplastons", going on to some detail of why this is a quack.
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski1.html
A crack dealer's customers are happy. That doesn't make selling crack a good idea, and it doesn't mean people should not criticize crack dealers.
Etymology of the word Privilege: Latin privilegium law affecting a specific person, special right, from privus private + leg- lex law
Check your premises.
Thankyou.
Excellent point. They *should* be prosecuted. I imagine if there was sufficient evidence of criminality, and a narrow enough target (i.e. not "wall street execs" but specific individuals), they would be.
Then again...
Didn't they patent it? They could sue this "medic" unless he joins their church.
By that same reasoning, as long as children "happy" with it, it would be ok to have sex with them.
What's the worst this treatment could do? Kill you?
No, the worst would be that this quackery robs you of all the money you could have spent on legitimate medical treatment. Hell, you could have spent the cash on pints of ice cream and raised your quality of life for your last couple of years. Bilking people out of their savings because they're terrified that they're going to die is pretty fucking low.
Breakfast served all day!
"Why would big pharma want cancer cured? Oh, yeah, I remember now - so they can stop selling all of those expensive cancer drugs."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0yXn9XA-5c
Ribbit.
Feel free to explain how electromagnetic therapy is supposed to do anything about that.
As for the "drug companies don't want a cure" argument -- if any company, drug or otherwise, could get their hands on a cure, they'd be over the moon with joy, thinking about the license to print money that they'd found. If a drug company really thought Burzynski was onto something, they'd try to buy him out, not supress him.
Next you all will be disparaging The Burzynski Clinic's AminoCare division with its line of anti-aging products and Brain Longevity pill supplements that may possibly prevent "Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive decline." Wonderous!
I know it's a little unusual for a cancer clinic to also be in the business of selling dietary supplements, but that just goes to show you what a visionary Dr. Burzynski is! You hater are just j-e-a-l-o-u-s.
I used to work at the Burzynski clinic. I did see the results. For brain tumors, non-hodgkin's lymphoma, and liver cancer (when combined with other treatments, something legally barred in the US), antineoplastons were quite effective if the patient got treated early enough, which usually meant before chemo or radiation. All other patients were basically being ripped off. Anyone going in under a SE or CE (exceptions) is a goner and was just being soaked for money. Oh, and most patients won't get antineoplastons. They get a different medicine (called PB).
I'm posting as an AC because Burzynski is sue happy. He has very good lawyers. He's been sued multiple times for discrimination and won every time. He is guilty though IMHO based on first hand experience. If you're Polish, you're golden. Everyone else is disposable. He has been sued by the federal government and won, although there was more than a little perjury at those trials.
One of the main reasons his clinic is so expensive is because it's poorly run. It seems like the managers there take management lessons from Dilbert's PHB.
Worse yet, he talks about cancer as though it's a single disease. It's not. It's a classification for a large collection of diseases, each with its own root causes, triggers, progressions, survivability, and treatments. To "cure cancer" is like to "cure virus" or even "cure sick".
We're having Christmas with an old friend of the wife's, who works as a homeopath. I'm not letting her (the homeopath) mix the drinks.
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
The dead don't complain much. This isn't being flippant. I personally knew a woman that took the 'alternative' road to 'cure' her breast cancer. It took four years to kill her.
[cough]SteveJobs[cough]
What? Too soon? Not for Steve Jobs.
Breakfast served all day!
If they're suing you for slandering them, sue them for slandering you by saying you're slandering them.
They'll have to prove their quackery is valid medicine in order to win both cases, and when they can't, you take away everything they own.
They punched that tar-baby all them ownselfs.
The Wisdom of Wally clearly illustrates the difference between trust and stupidity.
Seriously, why is this even a problem? Why doesn't the FDA just shut him down? He's claiming to be able to cure cancer and is instead bilking people who are dying. Wasn't the whole point of the FDA to eliminate problems like this? Where has the system broken down here exactly?
Other than the countersuit already addressed by the GP, the only thing your stupid LMGTFY link produces is a cease & desist against the makers of a silly satirical music video that used his likeness without his permission. I'm sorry, but a satirical music video is not science, and attempting to suppress it is in no way an attempt to suppress legitimate scientific dissent.
If you want to counter the science, counter it with more science, not with silly videos or FOIA requests for private emails.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
Because unlike Burzynski and his ilk, the Wall St. quacks own Washington. Plus a few political centers of other Western democracies.
I haven't read anything about this particular treatment; so I have no idea if it holds any promise whatsoever, or if it truly is just a scam. In reading everyone's replies though, I have to ask why everyone is so quick to dismiss alternative medicine altogether. Sure, I'm willing to admit there are lots of people trying to turn a quick buck by selling you sugar pills, but that doesn't mean we should immediately dismiss everything without an FDA seal stamped on it. The truth is, the FDA is under the thumb of big pharma's lobbyists. Pharmaceutical companies are only worried about making a pill that they can patent and sell; how well it works is secondary. If they find that chewing some roots will relieve a headache, they will guess which compound is responsible and synthesize it at the highest levels they can get away with before the side effects become too great. They're not worried about multiple compounds acting and counteracting in harmony. They just want something patentable. Until they have that patent, they will label those roots as shamanism. Who are you going to believe: some witchdoctor smeared with goat blood, or these smiling scientists in lab coats? Any studies into the benefits of said roots will be labeled as pseudoscience and snake oil. Meanwhile they're rushing Tuberex through clinical trials and falsifying documents for the FDA. Again, I'm not supporting Burzynski or his clinic. Rather, I'm just addressing a mindset I seem to be seeing among commenters. Remember that "science" doesn't know everything, nor does it claim to. I'm not saying you should believe things without proof, but don't dismiss them outright either. "I'm not sure" is an acceptable stance.
This is hands-down my favorite example of the Striesand Effect thus far.
All they will say is "Brains!". Am I asking the wrong questions?
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
If you are fucking Viagra you're using it wrong.
Actually, official medicine in UK does use accupouncture!
"That’s because real science thrives on criticism"
But only real educated criticise. Not criticise coming form people who know nothing about medicine or your proposed treatment.
I admit I have not read the original article, but unless I am missing my guess this is just some stupid high schooler who is criticising doctors.
Ignoring that in general the medical community does not agree with this guy I imagine that any medical center would sue when confronted with ignorant bloggers copying and recopying each other and, irregardless to the effectiveness of the procedure, probably changing know facts in the process.
Criticise is part of science, criticism from your peers, not random people/high schoolers.
That is like saying that these evolutionary biologists are not being very scientific when they do not respond/sue fundamentalist Christians who badger and criticize them.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Why would big pharma want cancer cured, you ask? So that they can profit from selling the cure. You see, if Big Pharma Company A has research that shows a cure for cancer but decides to not pursue it because they want to go on selling the drugs they already have to treat the symptoms of cancer, they run two risks. Risk number one, they fail to develop any new drugs to treat the symptoms and their patents on existing drugs expire. In that case, other people can start manufacturing those drugs and selling them for cheap. That is not very profitable. Risk number two, Big Pharma Company B is doing similar research and decides to pursue it. In this case, not only does Big Pharma Company A not make money off of selling the cure for cancer AND not get the PR push for being the company that developed the cure (while Big Pharma Company B does), they stop making money off of selling the treatments as well.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I'm sorry, but a satirical music video is not science.
Neither are high school bloggers
Obligatory SMBC: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2438
"In our lifetimes, we will find a cure for virus!"
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
A company that made an actual cure to cancer could print their own money off of the patent. Not to mention having humongous clout and popularity due to that revolutionary breakthrough.
And then, once they're cured of the fatal disease, you can still sell them all of your other drugs!
Big Pharma is not Science anyway. Yes, BIg Pharma conducts research, but that doesn't mean the whole scientific community is helping them.
If that guy had found anything, he could try publishing it in peer-reviewed journals. Or if he thinks there's a conspiracy to censor him, he could publish it online and open it to public scrutiny. This way the public would know what work he did and why he's being criticized. The public is not educated enough in medicine and science to assess a medical research paper, but at least if Big Pharma tried censoring him with bullshit criticism, that conspiracy would be much more obvious.
He should show the research he did, how he did it, who the patients were, what his method was, the results obtained, etc.
He also shouldn't sue people for pointing out problems with his alleged cure - silencing others does not prove anything and it is unscientific.
As for the Big Pharma conspiracy theories: I'm waiting for evidence. Sure, it's easy to say they don't have an interest in curing cancer. But what evidence is there?
- They cure dozens of other diseases, why would they make an exception with cancer? And why cancer? Why not the flu, which is much more contagious and can be deadly too?
- Why not sell the cure for a shit ton of money? There's two kinds of cancer patients: first, there's the patients who are willing to pay lots of money for treatment that has no guarantee of working. If they are willing to pay for small guarantees, imagine what they'd pay for a 95% guarantee. Second, there's the patients who have no money. These patients usually sign up for research on experimental drugs. So if Big Pharma really has a cure, why is this research going on?
- Cancer is a pretty tough disease, so instead of assuming Big Pharma has a cure and just won't give it to us, why not go for the much simpler explanation that we still haven't found a goddamn cure? I'm not saying the simpler explanation is always the right one but if you don't want to remain skeptical and you wish to take a positions, why immediately go with the complex explanation?
- Are there similar theories about HIV/AIDS, which is about as serious as cancer and also requires a shit ton of meds? Why or why not?
- You'd think the medical industry would attract a lot of people who really want to help others. Why is it then that, if Big Pharma hides a cure for cancer, it has seen less of its members turn against it than Scientology? If the US Military had a Bradley Manning among them, how come a community of doctors and people who often choose a job for the purpose of helping others don't have any whistle blowers among them? Nobody who thinks Big Pharma hides a cure for cancer has managed to infiltrate the pharmaceutical industry?
Finally: you read any reasonable debate and you'll find that people who defend positions that are worth defending provide evidence on their own, before even being asked for it. Yet I haven't seen a Big Pharma conspiracy theorist provide evidence unless it was requested (and even then, what I've seen was not the original evidence but allegations that evidence exists somewhere).
How come among people who defend a reasonable position, Big Pharma conspiracy theorists are the only ones who won't provide evidence for their claims? Come on, even the people who think aliens landed in Roswell have more evidence!
And how come these theorists appear to believe all the shit that is being said about Big Pharma? You criticize Big Pharma, all those conspiracy theorists immediately believe you. They believe all of it. Even the craziest claims. You never hear them agree with some accusations and disagree with others. No false claim has ever been made against Big Pharma, apparently. No claim against Big Pharma is highly questionable, apparently. No, all the accusations ever made are the obvious truth, it would seem!
Come on, it's obvious there's selective bias going on here!
I honestly am open to evidence. But I don't see any so far. If you have any, and you wish to try to convince me, please provide it. And please make sense in your arguments, because some stuff I hear really is suspicious.
When I lived in South Africa, there was an advanced, modern hospital, the kinds you'd find in the USA not far away from where i lived. But usually people didn't go there until they'd tried the witch doctors and undergo their range of treatments, and by then it would be too late. You know, lemon juice couldn't stop HIV from becoming AIDS, and the hospital couldn't do anything by that time. I thought that was an 'African thing' ...but it's happening in my own backyard (Texas). People really are the same wherever you go, imagine that.
The rate of cancer survival in the medical industry is pretty bad ~ shouldn't the entire industry be criticized more?
When I was a kid not so long ago, Hodgkin's lymphoma was a death sentence. I remember hearing my parents speak in hushed tones about friends and acquaintances who'd been diagnosed and were trying to get their affairs in order.
Today, Wikipedia says that "In one recent European trial, the 5-year survival rate for those patients with a favorable prognosis was 98%, while that for patients with worse outlooks was at least 85%."
I'd call that progress.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Ok, I can see how you might say that they have a monopoly on dental care, but medical practice
Nope, I just don't see it.
They focus on nutrition.
Maybe you meant the Americans for Democratic Action? I will agree that they are a rather nefarious organization, but I am pretty sure they limit themselves to voter fraud and misinforming people and don't really take a lot of interest in medical practice.
As for magnetic fields/electricity, it has been very thoroughly studied and my understanding is that it is used to speed healing of bone fractures and some types of muscle injuries.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Meanwhile, the UK government is currently looking into reforms to their rather chilling libel laws (burden of proof is reversed from the US laws, with the defendant having to prove the truth of their statements), so this set of threats and the attention it's getting is potentially helpful.
You know what they call alternative medicine that works?
Medicine.
I'm here all week. Tip your veal, etc.
"Long time listener, first time caller."
Steve Jobs regretted not having surgery immediately after his diagnosis. He went the alternate route first, and while medical treatment might not have cured him, it almost certainly would have helped more than basically not doing anything at all.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Chemical reactions are electrical interactions after all.
Hmm. Not in any meaningful sense, no.
I say this as someone who works in a research group on chemoinformatics, involving comparison and analysis of (bio)chemical reactions. For example, here is a drawing (made by graphics software written by me of an atom-atom mapping from my colleague):
cinnamate beta-D-glucosyltransferase
Cinnamate (in cyan) is being attached to the sugar (purple). This is carried out by an enzyme, with a precise arrangement of amino acids in an active site. How on earth would 'electrical interactions' (in general) affect this reaction - or any other?
I have a friend who is a bright guy who is constantly sending me videos and saying, "Wow, what do you think of what this guy has to say?" Every now and again I watch one. Every time, I notice that the guy (whoever it is this time) goes over some aspect of his argument in a way that sounds really convincing, but, if you closely pay attention to the actual words he uses, doesn't support the conclusion he asks you to draw from it. I am sure that this documentary is much the same.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
That's not to say that they are all sweetness and light though, they are known to suppress some negative data, so billions are spent repeating research already done by another company. I don't have any solutions, but there are issues with the current system that could be resolved (with regulation, mostly, sorry all you small governmentists).
One can't expect for profit companies to always be entirely truthful if said truth would harm profits, as they are there to make money, it's what shareholders demand.
It is on netflix now. The name of the documentary on him is called "Burzynski."
Extremely interesting and fits well within the known corruption. Especially how the FDA is allowing clinical trials and previously allowed other trials and how officials mess things up on purpose, etc. Fits right into the patterns I've seen locally (read about state/nationally.) Could be this is merely the way they present it; mixing in truth with the lies or it may just be true. This guy has been on trial multiple times and the gov lost. You'd think they could do a better job at discrediting him if it was so simple and they'd not have their hands into it if they think he is an open/shut fraud case. Burzynski could be a total prick, who knows. But its not open and shut. I would expect his legal action to come from 1) his lawyers he's had budgeted for decades need something to do, 2) his more favorable status these days is under jeopardy by such critics (especially the ones he doesn't cure.)
His cancer cure isn't 100% (none are) and it isn't a cure - he doesn't claim it is - it just performs well enough to be out there with other more expensive drugs out there. I know, my mother had cancer; the costs even with insurance were crazy PLUS they didn't tell her until afterwards the drugs that made it hell only boosted her odds of recovery by 8%!! She has some permanent damage from those also toxic drugs.
HUGE amounts of money are involved and I'm not convinced many parties have any intention of curing anything more than necessary. This guy could be well intentioned or not; he doesn't appear to have been getting rich from it. True or not, the reality is that a real cure without mega profit would be suppressed if it could be (See Obi Wan in the british film "The Man in the White Suit" for some of the issues, I remember it because its the only film to touch of them I've seen; also entertaining is how they portray a genius science guy .)
I'm highly skeptical of the corrupt US health cartel; even when approved and "legit" we end up with disasters later on, then lawsuits, then we find out Merck was suppressing data and knew it was bad, etc. Then they sell the drugs to the 3rd world until caught again... Don't forget the cheap testing they do on unknowing poor people in Africa...
We should be spending more time on Faith Healers...
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Absolutely. And in the interests of balance, everyone should also view the Texas Medical Board complaint against him. You're welcome.
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
My apologies, the url didn't parse for some reason. >>> http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/tmbvsburzynski.pdf
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
Bilking people out of their savings because they're terrified that they're going to die is pretty fucking low.
Their money is forfeit any way you look at it. The insurance company will almost certainly clean them out if this guy doesn't.
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
I used to cross the street at a crosswalk. But then it occurred to me that I could cross the street in the middle of the road. Sure, everyone warned me that the cars were coming by fast and that it was after a curve in the road so it may be hard for them to see pedestrians who weren't at the crosswalk. But I did it. I got to my destination much faster! Not only that, I know a guy who crossed at the crosswalk and got hit by a car anyway.
it's unknown whether or not his delaying the surgery lead to his death.
It's not a matter of too soon, it's a matter of we don't know what ultimately did him in. We don't know if it metastasized or if something else was going on.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Either a troll or a kook. You decide...
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Look pal, you won't make any money selling urine as a cancer therapy if you keep demonstrating that mainstream medicine has in fact made strides. You need to handwave away those kinds of numbers, talk a lot about Big Pharma conspiracies and get a pamphlet with a lot of anecdotal and unverifiable claims like "Before P. Wilson of Honolulu drank my frosty piss, he was at death's door with just days to live, but since his therapy, has fully recovered and is president of a small central African nation."
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
In this case Burzynski apparently doesn't even have a proper trial protocol, and no credible statistics could result. He's also been at it for quite a long time (30+ years!), much longer than it should take to do some proper testing. Hence.... quack.
Look, you don't get to reverse the burden of proof on treatments, where we should accept any claims unless they've been disproven. There are far too many wacky claims to be able to use that approach, even if it was appropriate. If the proponents of any treatment want it to be labeled as genuine rather than quackery, then carry out proper trials and produce reputable publications. Choosing not to do so suggests that the proponents themselves know that it's quackery.
If someone wants to do testing on the effects of chewing a measured amount of certain roots -- go ahead. I suggest you not smear your submitted papers in goat blood, though, and be careful about dosages if you haven't isolated the compound.
"Phil Plait summarizes the situation thus: 'In general, it’s a little unusual, to say the least, for a team doing medical research to sue someone for criticizing them."
It seems to me that there is no team doing medical research, only a group of doctors/grifters exploiting people when they are the most vulnerable. I guess being part of a good-sized magazine makes one temper their text.
..posted AC? Coincidence? I think not.
You mean like their dwindling numbers of customers and slaves? That mafia company is loosing thousands and thousands of them every month and every year, if that is "just fine", I would like to know your definition of bad is.
They are dying. Hopefully sooner than later.
Gosh I hate them.
The ADA has a monopoly on medical practice in America
Four out of five dentists agree, the fifth guy isn't in the cartel.
A monopoly that owns nothing and does not practice price coordination is a strange kind of monopoly. It's much closer to a syndicate or guild.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
An analysis of the clinic/company(moneywise!): http://blog.anarchic-teapot.net/2011/11/29/should-you-invest-in-burzynski-stock/ Jennifer Jones "Master List" of all things Burszynski: http://josephinejones.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/burzynski-blogs-my-master-list/ List of most blogs about Burzynski: http://josephinejones.wordpress.com/2011/11/25/stanislaw-streisand-and-spartacus/ Esowatch Wikiarticle about Burzynski, more thorough than Wikipedia: http://esowatch.com/en/index.php?title=Antineoplaston
He's cured people with incurable cancer. That's a fact - and a well documented one. And the FDA has taken unprecedented steps to shut him down. Also a fact.
You morons read a biased article like this and you form a half-assed opinion. When someone has a partial cure (ie. not 100% effective) for something that, until now, had NO cure and was 100% fatal, then there's something to it. Do the math.
Well, those are much simpler molecules than I had thought. It was some time ago that I watched the documentary, and for some reason or another I was under the impression that the molecules were larger - short polypeptide chains at least. Apparently I was wrong. These seem to just be amino acid conjugates. As far as activity goes, the best these can really hope for is to either interfere with the translation mechanisms in the cell (being substituted in for the normal amino acid) or to release their (toxic perhaps?) conjugate when/if the amino acid is converted into the normal form. Either of these would theoretically affect rapidly growing cells more quickly than senescent cells, but would otherwise affect cancerous and non cancerous cells equally. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other reason/mechanism whereby these molecules would be active. Having said that, I'm highly skeptical of any claims of activity from either molecule.
And I agree that purifying the most active molecules would be a far better route. Even better would be to synthesize them in known quantities and purities (and these are simple enough to warrant it).
But is he happy?
Most (not all) of the problems with the current system are a result of the regulatory environment. Aspirin would not be approved in today's regulatory environment. That does not mean we should completely do away with all pharmaceutical regulations, but the current system is flawed. I, also, don't have a solution. I think I have an idea, but not one that can be resolved on here.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
That's not really the issue here. The issue fundamentally isn't whether or not these lying quacks cure anybody or not, but rather whether real scientists are free to judge them by the scientific method.
According to the summary, no it isn't. He's suing three blogs. He would find it very difficult indeed to sue a scientific publication for libel as science papers generally contain within them the evidence that supports their claims. It's important to remember that science is not "everything a scientist does" -- science is a specific set of practices. That I personally am a scientist does not make my shopping science. That I am a scientist does not of itself make my blogging science. (Even if I post the conclusion of one of my published papers on my blog, the blog post is not science, it is marketing -- the blog post does not contain all the information for reproducing the experiment and is not subject to peer review.) I'm not saying this out of any support for Burzynski -- frankly, I've never heard of him and I sincerely hope he loses the lawsuit -- or alternative medicine, but I've noticed there is a worrying trend on slashdot and other venues to believe that anything a scientist says must be science. The worst example, sadly, is The Infinite Monkey Cage -- where scientists come on a radio show and talk almost exclusively about things they have not conducted experiments on. When Paul Nurse says "It actually is about passion" of what causes some people to be climate skeptics (no I'm not one), it is not science -- he has not conducted any experiments into the psychological reasoning of climate change deniers, and he's not presenting any experimental data on the reasons why they deny climate change, he's just spouting off an opinion but using the word "actually" and the fact that he's a scientist to make the public believe that must psychologically be the cause. The whole bloomin' show consists of opinionation like that. And this is doing an appalling disservice by making it appear that science is "holding a particular set of opinions", rather than "performing a particular a set of practices". Rant over, move along.
I'm interested in hearing more about the work they're doing with decapitation survival, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Well, some of these treatments really can kill you, if the "treatment" is bad enough. Most are simply bad by fault of removing something that is good, like getting people to stop taking their medicine so that a faith healer can wave his hands and pray over them.
Yet Another Tech Blog
(but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
No, and that's a completely ass backwards view to take. It doesn't matter in the least if the patients are "satisfied". What matters is whether this is fraud or not.
Many victims of fraud are completely satisfied and happy with the person they're fraudulently giving money to. That doesn't make it any less wrong.
Yeah, that doesn't happen. In fact, climate scientists are generally subject to some of the harshest criticisms, from people who have no fucking idea what they're talking about.
Yeah, if you can't produce something real, instead of a retarded LMGTFY link, I'm forced to conclude that you're just a troll.
The onus is on YOU to produce evidence backing up your point, not us.
No, but you have failed to prove anything remotely like your point. Your stupid link didn't produce anything close to what you claimed. Therefore, your entire point is invalid, and you have no idea what you're talking about.
The fact is that the medical community as a whole has not cured cancer.
The fact is this guy's methods don't work either. Him deciding to sue critics rather than scientifically address them is further evidence of his quackery.
The ADA has a monopoly on medical practice in America, I prefer choices.
Not if those choices are just going to be quacks. If they truly believe they have something, let them prove it scientifically. The second they refuse to do that, or they sue critics, then they are instantly a quack, and don't deserve any praise or sympathy whatsoever.
This guy is for real? I though someone made this shit up for a low budget comedy on netflix....
http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Burzynski/70140534?trkid=2361637
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1632703/
The most retarded thing about Libertarianism, at least as espoused by people on the internet, is the idea that as long as there's at least an illusion of choice, then there can be no harm done. That idea is completely absurd on it's face, especially the idea that things are fine even when no real choice is offered.
Scientology has operatives in many, many places of power that helps them get away with that shit.
If his treatment had any merit whatsoever, he wouldn't need to sue those that criticize his research.
Furthermore, by being the type of person to silence critics, he's instantly become a complete pile of shit, regardless of how effective his treatment is.
It would be a made up fantasy character. Just because you are so unskilled that you have to whore yourself out to whatever morally bankrupt will have you, doesn't meant that skilled people are so handicapped. There is a lot of real science out there to work with, just becuase you can't line your own personal pockets with it does not make it any less real.
Yeah, no. That in no way, shape, or form excuses this bullshit. This man is a quack, a fraud, and a complete pile of shit. He deserves to be taken out back and shot.
Most likely the established medical community's only diagnosis problem for these customers was how long they would last, nothing like an actual treatment. And as someone who lost a family member to cancer, false miracle cures do a lot more good to boost morale than cartons of ice cream. My dad would have spent all his savings on quacks if not for leaving us destitute after his death.
Not to mention the incredible jingoism required to believe that every country in the world but your own is too stupid to come up with a cure on their own, if such a thing were possible. If you're an American, for example, and you believe that "Big Pharma" is colluding to block a cure for something, then what you're really saying is that no other country has the ability to make that same discovery without our help and that we're single-handedly able to hold the world hostage. How arrogant can you get?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I'm a Libertarian and I wholeheartedly support labeling laws to help you make good choices. In a grocery store, go ahead and sell a bottle of HFCS-and-MSG laced trans fats if you want. There better be a warning sign on it to let people know what they're getting into, though.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Burzynski
2010 NR 107 minutes
This true story follows a biochemist who challenged the Food and Drug Administration for his right to begin clinical trials on a new cancer treatment. In addition to recounting Burzynski's astonishing legal victories in the face of skepticism, this documentary also examines several of his patients and their success in fighting terminal cancer.
For real though I don't see how some random blogger counts as peer review.If some dumb ass off the street makes libelous claims about you or your products why not sue the hell out of them. Has nothing to do with scientific peer review process. Also since when is a treatment that is going through FDA approval process considered "Alternative". When I hear "Alternative" I think crystals and diluted water and such.
um because bonding and orientation are based upon the electrons in the orbital shell, and all (non nuclear) chemical reactions are influenced by the presence or absence of specific electrons in specific shells.
for larger molecules this still holds true, but is more abstract because of the varying contributors to the conformation.
So wait, he is charging people tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars for a urine treatment? Hell, I'll piss on ya for free...
These snake-oil sales men prey on vulnerable people that are grasping at straws hoping to save their loved ones. These are the people that need to be locked up and the key tossed away.
And from the Articles, the Marc guy that sends threatening letters to 17 years olds, if he is a real person, should really be careful what he says to people. You can face charges for portraying yourself as a lawyer when you arent one. And he does try to come off sounding like one. Though woefully inadaquately. Anyone of those people they tried to threaten or intimidate could turn around and press charges on them.
A company that made an actual cure to cancer could print their own money off of the patent.
Not to mention having humongous clout and popularity due to that revolutionary breakthrough.
c.f. the people who eradicated small pox, as well as the polio vaccine and the MMR vaccine (want deaf grandchildren? don't get your children vaccinated for MMR) and the DDP vaccine, and every other vaccine that stops diseases from ever happening in the first place, and in many cases allowing us to nearly eliminate that disease from our common environment.
"Big Pharma doesn't want to cure cancer"... pff... yeah, right.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
I'm interested in hearing more about the work they're doing with decapitation survival, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Yeah, in some states, decapitation and rigor mortis are the only conditions under which a paramedic can call a death on scene. Otherwise, they have to try and save the person, which increases the DOA rates, but prevents autopsy reports that indicate that the time of death occurred during the initial police investigation.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
yet the fact that modern medicine hasn't solved it somehow anoints alternative medicine--which has never empirically shown any effectiveness beyond what you'd see from placebo--as the savior?
Ahem, just to be pedantic here, acupuncture has been shown to be effective at stress relief. (Of course, it's documented therapeutic effects have also been shown to work when needles are inserted randomly, rather than "chi prescribed".) As well, massage therapy. And Chiropractics do actually do efficacious work on some forms of back injuries...
Of course, all three of these don't actually treat anything other than relaxing a patient and making them feel better. It's far too easy for a quack to make the jump from "this is relaxing" to "this is curing".
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
Abstracting way too far... hydrogen bonds are essentially magnetic attraction. Being that magnetism and electricity are related, it's kind of technically electrical. Reduction involves the transfer of electrons, which is itself essentially an electrical action as well.
Salt: held together by extremely small magnets.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
it's unknown whether or not his delaying the surgery lead to his death.
It's not a matter of too soon, it's a matter of we don't know what ultimately did him in. We don't know if it metastasized or if something else was going on.
Well, I believe he had expressed regret about taking time off pursuing alternative medicine. (Heard it from someone who heard it from someone, take with a grain of salt, confirm yourself. But it fits with someone going to alternative medicine and then returning to modern medicine.)
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
'Alternative Medicine' (Clinic) Attempts To Silence Critics
Wow, now here's behavior we've NEVER seen before!
Say, is Scientology considered alternative medicine?
Because in the United States you are guilty until proven wealthy.
"Happy Customers" is not general how the effectiveness of medical treatment is measured.
Further to that, nobody is suing the clinic, they are mererly shining a light on what they consider highly irregular, ethically unsound and (potentially) fraudulent. The clinic has responded by threatening people with a variety of nonsensical legal actions and also indulged in some vague menacing of the "we know where you live" type.
Even if you're the sort of idiot that thinks the free market will sort out quack doctors from real ones, surely you don't oppose free speech and information? How is enlightened self interest supposed to work without the enlightened bit?
His drugs have been in 'trials' since the mid 90s at least, they are in perpetual trials, which he charges tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars for patients to get on. He has published no results.
The mechanism by which his antineoplastons might have an effect is irrelevant when they have not been shown to have any effect at all and after this long there is no real reason to think they might.
Because amino acids use electrons to react. Just like any other reaction in Chemistry. Yes, what he's saying is true. How do you think Hydrogen bonds work? Gravity? Jesus. And your whole spiel
Chemical reactions are electrical interactions after all.
Hmm. Not in any meaningful sense, no.
I say this as someone who works in a research group on chemoinformatics, involving comparison and analysis of (bio)chemical reactions. For example, here is a drawing (made by graphics software written by me of an atom-atom mapping from my colleague):
cinnamate beta-D-glucosyltransferase
Cinnamate (in cyan) is being attached to the sugar (purple). This is carried out by an enzyme, with a precise arrangement of amino acids in an active site. How on earth would 'electrical interactions' (in general) affect this reaction - or any other?
where you're basically just name dropping what your research does? What is this, argumentation by shock and awe?
Can you tell us anything about Marc Stephens? Have you heard of him? Is he a lawyer? If not, what relationship does he have with the clinic?
Nice Article.Thank you for sharing.Waiting for updating.wholesale women cheap Coach backpacks from China
There's always another side to the story...
http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2011/11/burzynski_fanatic_threatens_bloggers.php
It needs to be science before you can counter it. A basic requirement of science is reproducibility.
And Mann's research has been reproduced. Multiple times. With essentially the same results. The email hunt is all part of an attempt to discredit an individual, since the science itself is pretty solid.
And if the video was so "silly" why spend money to threaten legal action?
I didn't defend his use of legal action against the makers of the video. Nor did I criticize it. I simply countered your claim that Mann is using lawsuits to prevent the science from being called into question. There are a million silly videos on YouTube made by Global Warming skeptics. He went after the one that used his image, and ignored the rest. If you really think that's part of an attack on science, well then, I don't know what more to say to you.
It's clear that my drawing parallels between Mann and quacks has incensed you. Sorry, but that's how it looks to me. I predict your next response will be an ad hominem attack.
Not really. I just saw a comment I disagreed with, and I voiced my opinion. I really don't see what you could possibly have based your prediction on. But if it'll make you feel better, I suppose I could call you a weenie. Satisfied?
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
I believe that the cure for cancer is to stop eating processed foods and eat primarily fresh fruit and vegetables, juices, and organic meat in order to have a strong immune system that can fight cancer on it's own. The body has the capability to heal itself from cancer if it is given the right environment. This includes staying away from toxic cemicals. Avoiding vaccinations is also a must. Look into it. You will find out I'm right.
Keep away from the pharmaceuticals.
Look up Argent in Florida. They got busted a couple of years before the meltdown, but once their mortgages are bundled whatchagonna do?
Who proved Burzynski a fraud? When, where and how?
:o)
If he is a proven fraud, why does the National Cancer Institute have him listed as currently having 11 different government-approved clinical cancer trials in the works? Why did government agencies patent the very same compounds, specifically for the treatment of cancer, which were then reversed when it was shown that Burzynski already owned patents on them?
Just wondering.
You have an old view of information there, outdated by a couple centuries.
The problem today is not that we don't have information. It is sorting and spin. Usually, we have too much information for any given decision. Finding the important parts in there is one challenge. If you are really good with search engines, it doesn't take long until people in the company come to you with random questions (been there, done that).
But in anything where there's money or other interests involved, people will also spin the available information. There's a lot of good info out there on how you can interpret the same statistical data in various ways. See above, use a search engine and find it. It's revealing. I had the fortune of having a statistics lecture by a professor who included a "how to lie with statistics" two-hour segment.
Good scammers these days don't lie. They simply select and spin the information in such a way that it all seems very convincing and true, and will check out on surface inspection - but it is still totally bogus. It is a lot easier to do that then you'd think. I can easily proof that the sun doesn't exist if you allow me to choose my data points, for example. You would, of course, not belief that because it runs contrary to your every-day perception of reality. But what if it weren't about the sun, but about something you can not falsify by your own observation? Like cancer treatment?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
[off topic from the quackery]
Chemical interactions are all mediated by the electromagnetic force.
Covalent bonds, ionic bonds, hydrogen bonds, Van der Waals forces - all electromagnetic.
Steric aspects of biochemical interactions are also ultimately electromagnetic, as is the reason solid macroscopic objects can't pass through one another (i.e. why we don't fall through the floor).
> it's unknown whether or not his delaying the surgery lead to his death.
The survival rates drop sharply over time. Delaying it while pursuing all sorts of alternatives and trying to wish the cancer away certainly didn't cure him.
it's unknown whether or not his delaying the surgery lead to his death.
It's not a matter of too soon, it's a matter of we don't know what ultimately did him in. We don't know if it metastasized or if something else was going on.
Well, I believe he had expressed regret about taking time off pursuing alternative medicine. (Heard it from someone who heard it from someone, take with a grain of salt, confirm yourself. But it fits with someone going to alternative medicine and then returning to modern medicine.)
Says so in his official Biography.
Hydrogen bonds are in no fashion magnetic attraction.
Hydrogen bonds are an edge-case of van der Waal's forces, specifically due to the massive charge difference between electronegative species and hydrogen when covalently bonded to pretty much any type of atom.
If hydrogen bonds were magnetic, then regular magnets would have dramatic effects: namely, water would be sheared out of your body by MRIs (and your DNA unzipped, proteins unfolded etc.)
it's unknown whether or not his delaying the surgery lead to his death.
It's not a matter of too soon, it's a matter of we don't know what ultimately did him in. We don't know if it metastasized or if something else was going on.
Which doesn't change the fact that pseudo-science led someone to postpone treatment which is notable for being very time sensitive. Metastasis doesn't happen right away, and its quite likely that quantity matters (i.e. obviously not every cancer cell necessarily succeeds in setting up a secondary tumor).
"That’s because real science thrives on criticism, since it’s only through critiques that the potential errors of a particular method can be assessed "
Oh, you mean like 'chemotherapy', otherwise known as 'slow death by poisoning'...
Or like so-called 'AIDS' research, which has prevented any opposing hypotheses from being tested? (You know, like the fact that 'AIDS' has never spread out of the high risk groups, even though the STD infection rate has been going up year upon year for over twenty years? Where are all the 20 year olds dying from AIDS?
Have you heard of Marc Stephens? Did he work there when you were there? What's he like? Is he a lawyer?
That name is pure comedy gold. It's like a mixture of Sergeant Berserker and Professor Fraudski.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
You can't argue with solid evidence like that.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Hydrogen bonds are in no fashion magnetic attraction.
Hydrogen bonds are an edge-case of van der Waal's forces, specifically due to the massive charge difference between electronegative species and hydrogen when covalently bonded to pretty much any type of atom.
If hydrogen bonds were magnetic, then regular magnets would have dramatic effects: namely, water would be sheared out of your body by MRIs (and your DNA unzipped, proteins unfolded etc.)
And what is van der Waal's forces? Momentary dipoles that attract molecules together.
I never said that they were strongly magnetic (which is why they don't get sheared out of your body during an MRI), but the attractive force is still fundamentally due to a charge difference, which is driven by magnetic force.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
For looking up my sources, I give you 5 internets. :)
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
Storm has some good points. The main character is ignoring mystery of consciousness, to begin with, and leaps from the fact that science does have a lot of explanatory power to a religion of "scientistic" materialism assuming that whatever is not currently explained well (and may never be explained well) should be or can be ignored.
Google on work by Charles T. Tart for example: http://www.paradigm-sys.com/end-of-materialism/index.cfm
"Charles T. Tart is internationally known for his more than 50 years of research on the nature of consciousness, altered states of consciousness (ASCs) and parapsychology, and is one of the founders of the field of Transpersonal (spiritual) Psychology. His and other scientists' work convinced him that there is a real and vitally important sense in which we are spiritual beings, but the too dominant, scientistic, materialist philosophy of our times, masquerading as genuine science, dogmatically denies any possible reality to the spiritual. This hurts people, it pressures them to reject vital aspects of their being."
Or:
http://www.esalenctr.org/display/confpage.cfm?confid=9&pageid=121&pgtype=1
"According to Tart's model, the interface between the transpersonal "mind" and our brain-body's computational assessment and virtual reality construction of the physical world results in consciousness as-we-experience-it. Our consciousness is not pure, and we don't see "reality" as it is. Rather, what we experience is a semi-arbitrary construction derived from the balance between the transpersonal mind and the brain-body to produce a virtual reality that we simplistically call "reality." This virtual reality is a good simulation of the physical world, so it works well most of the time for our practical purposes, but it isn't reality per se. "
Many people loved the "Matrix" movies. Plato had the allegory of the "Cave" millennia ago which is similar. How do we know that reality and our own conscious being is not much more complex than our current limited brains can handle? It is indeed a leap of faith to say we are nothing but carbon atoms, or even just patterns of carbon atoms. It is not scientific! But many, many people make that "scientistic" leap of faith quite possibly in error because science can be so blindingly helpful sometimes in developing technology or making some predictions.
More points here on the limits of science as a *social* enterprise:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/to-james-randi-on-skepticism-about-mainstream-science.html
I give an example there about how for many people homeopathy may indeed work as a system of healing, even if only from the fact that the placebo effect is scientifically proven (it's even getting stronger) and homeopathy is a way of accessing that placebo effect power. There may be other aspects in practice as well, like most homeopaths may listen more to clients than MDs and may give good nutritional advice.
Also, unlike most usually innocuous homeopathc remedies, many drugs are put on the market after questionable studies and may be deadly. For example, consider Vioxx that may have contributed to my own father's death (when now I know better nutrition and vitamin D might have helped with his joint pain):
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/11/29/merck-pays-a-pittance-for-mass-murder/
"Q: Who killed more Americans-- al Qaeda crashing airplanes into the World Trade Center, or Merck pushing Vioxx?
A: Merck, by a factor of 18."
That disaster is one more reason we need better health sensemaking:
http://www.changemakers.com/morehealth/entries/health-sensemaking
Als
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
http://www.rexresearch.com/naessens/naessens.htm
A childhood friend of my spouse died of Reye's syndrome associated with a single use of aspirin. At least 27% of Reye's deaths are believed to be aspirin-related, based on blood tests and autopsies. Many researchers set the number even higher.
So even ignoring all the other aspirin-related deaths we're talking about thousands of people here. How many people can be proved to have died of willow bark toxicity? None, that I can find. There aren't any documented cases.
Your statement that "you basically have no chance to get poisoned" is rendered meaningless by your caveat of "modulo personal adverse drug reactions". All adverse drug reactions are personal. In particular, death is highly personal.
I predict a misquoting of Raymond Wolfinger in our future.
Many of the statements in that article are incorrect -- or at the very least slanted and misleading -- which you can verify for yourself from the National Cancer Institute's own website and other easily available sources.
First off, it must be pointed out that Burzynski's theories about why it is supposed to work has absolutely no bearing on whether it works. A great many inventors have invented things without knowing what actually makes them tick. Tesla comes to mind, for just one example.
While phenylacetic acid (PA) might have, as the article states, been found to be harmful when ingested back in 1919, there is a lot of missing information there. What were the concentrations? What were the total amounts? Etc., etc. The fact is that PA has ben around a long time and has been in use for some time in medicine as a treatment for other conditions. You can verify that, too, in just a couple of minutes on the Web. Remember back when cyclamates were found to be toxic to animals... but it took amounts that were the equivalent of eating many pounds of the stuff per day? Very, very unrealistic. And that was a lot more recent thatn 1919. There has been talk of re-approving cyclamates for use in food products.
While Burzynski claims that some of the chemical compounds he uses were first isolated from blood and urine (a claim that is really pretty irrelevant to the issue at hand), the compounds he uses are actually synthesized in his plant from precursor chemicals (source: National Cancer Institute). His actual treatments involve neither blood or urine, and those are not the sources being used.
As for their effect on cancer, the statement that they "have no effect" is just plain false. One large drug company tried to patent one of the same chemicals, and certain U.S. government agencies actually were awarded patents on the same chemicals, specifically for the purposes of fighting cancer. Those patents were reversed when it was shown that Burzynski already owned patents on those compounds.
But here is the most important issue about that: in the process of obtaining those patents, the U.S. government itself claimed that those treatments were likely effective against cancer.
Further yet, the earlier studies done by the National Cancer Institute, which found no effect, were done using dosages that were far smaller than anything that was ever shown to be effective. If you want to do a bad study, that is the way to go about it. Those studies have since been invalidated, and Burzynski is now working with the NCI on 11 clinical trials.
So... don't take slanted and misleading smear pieces at face value. Look it up yourself. You might learn something.
Though I did find your response to be a cogent counterpoint in this case (and I very much agree with you on the topic). Please don't ascribe brxdxn's personal views to all Ron Paul supporters. Sure there are people out their that think that the 'Free Market' (whatever they think that happens to be) can solve all problems but there are also plenty of people who think the same is true for government as well. I have no idea what Ron Paul thinks on the topic. Considering he was a practicing doctor for decades my guess would be that he would be very supportive of modern medicine but I have no idea and I honestly don't care. Like any classically liberal candidate, he believes strongly that people should have the freedom to do things that are both genius but outside the norm and that they should be able to things that are incredibly stupid and outside the norm.
My political views match closely to Paul's because I like the idea of states and individuals having the freedom to take wildly different approaches to problems. Please remember that scientific breakthroughs have never come from established top down edicts produced from some governing body like a federal committee, a king's court or a Religious Oligarchy but rather from individuals with the freedom (or courage, where there is no freedom) to express their minority viewpoint. Any inquisitive mind will tell you that you must be able to be wrong a lot more then you are right.
I completely agree that "real" homeopathy *should* be rot - there's absolutely no sensible reason why it would work, and you won't find me paying for a bottle of distilled water. HOWEVER, I remember reading about a couple independent double-blind studies done by researchers hoping to *prove* that fact, which in fact failed to do so. That is to say, despite their preconceptions they did find in fact find that the homeopathic solutions had statistically significant effect on their subjects. I'm sure it disgusted them to no end, but kudos to them for publishing their results anyway. Hopefully there will be some follow-up studies seeking to figure out *why* it works. I just wish I could find the article again.
Always remember, common sense is fundamentally based on a lifetime of bias and preconceived notions formed from a severely limited frame of reference. It's a wonderful tool 90% of the time, but if our common sense understanding of the universe were accurate politicians would have a much harder job lying their way into office, and such everyday objects as transistors couldn't operate and a computer would still fill an entire building.
* This statement is provably false if your common sense incorporates an accurate understanding of quantum mechanics, in which case I suggest that it's completely unsuited to of day-to-day life and I'm surprised you've survived long enough to read this.
Because very few people eat/drink willow bark? And those that do die from it probably are described as "natural causes" or "unknown causes", but still mostly because the ratio of people consuming willow bark vs aspirin is 1 : 100,000,000. And of course, what makes you so confident they wouldn't have died drinking the willow bark tea for THE EXACT SAME REASON?
No, it isn't. Again - magnetic fields are not electric fields.
Magnetism is a separate, but related, force to the Electric force.
Specifically: magnetism is the relativistic correction for the force experienced by charged bodies when observed from a different inertial reference frame. Frames of reference must be ultimately consistent, but Lorentz contraction means two charges would appear closer then they actually are. Thus to an outside observer, magnetism is observed with acts to correct for the perceived "increase" in force due to the electric field, and thus ensuring frame consistency. Hence why you only get magnetism from a flowing electrical current, for example.
The dipole is a dipole of electric force. It is the same effect that lifts paper if you charge something with static electricity - there is no magnetism involved - a strong negative charge induces a local positive charge, and the electric force creates the lifting effect.
It is true that the "orbiting" electrons in a molecule also represent a tiny Bohr magnet, but this magnetism is thousands of times smaller in attraction then the interatomic and intermolecular forces at play in hydrogen bonding or ionic or covalent bonding.
Intermolecular forces are not driven by magnetism - they're driven by electric forces.
People just aren't used to thinking of electric forces as doing "real" work compared to impressive forces like magnets because the dielectric breakdown of free space is fairly low. But this is not true at all at the molecular scale.
When you get to the point of actually making up numbers just so that you can avoid doing any science, you aren't reachable by argument any more.
Your faith is too strong to be swayed by mere observable reality.
So it comes down to this: what do you believe? Here are some options:
God and the bible: it says that it's all true (Self-fulfilling). If you don't believe it you're a heretic. Never mind if it doesn't match reality.
Documentaries: they tell you their point of view and show you sensationalist arguments to convince you. They don't tell you to search for certain key words on Google, but that would be too bothersome for you anyway.
Politicians: they need your vote. They'll do their best to pass their message in a way that makes you give it, even if it means not passing the message at all.
Scientists: they want to find breakthroughs. They need money for their research. Real scientists work according to the principles of science. Others are actually pseudo-scientists.
Science: it's based on some principles which are very easy to understand: (1) state your hypothesis, (2) show your data, (3) if it can't be replicated (peer review), it's not true. Unfortunately, to be able to understand some scientific articles you may need to be a scientist yourself.
http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
So? Adverse reactions happen.
Many more people die from allergies to perfectly normal peanut butter. Ditto for poison ivy.
"So even ignoring all the other aspirin-related deaths we're talking about thousands of people here. How many people can be proved to have died of willow bark toxicity? None, that I can find. There aren't any documented cases."
How many people have proven case of death listed as "Fall from the Empire State Building while wearing swimsuit"? I wager that this number is quite close to zero. Does that mean it's safe?
Quite a lot of people die from trying 'natural' remedies. Hey, most narcotics are made from natural stuff too. Some of them would even qualify for the 'organic' label! Let's list all drug-related deaths as faults of 'natural' medicine.
OK, Storm. I give up, you win. Empirical data is meaningless, only your completely unsupported suppositions and spur-of-the-moment theories contain any objective truth. Aspirin good, willow bark bad, I get it, I submit, I give up.
Magnetism is a separate, but related, force to the Electric force.
Oh, so Magnetism is mediated by the magneton, and electrostatic force is mediated by the... electron? No, that term wouldn't work, because it's already defined for something else, the mediating particle of electric current.
Oh wait, reading up:
As a consequence of Einstein's theory of special relativity, electricity and magnetism are fundamentally interlinked. Both magnetism lacking electricity, and electricity without magnetism, are inconsistent with special relativity, due to such effects as length contraction, time dilation, and the fact that the magnetic force is velocity-dependent. However, when both electricity and magnetism are taken into account, the resulting theory (electromagnetism) is fully consistent with special relativity.[6][9] In particular, a phenomenon that appears purely electric to one observer may be purely magnetic to another, or more generally the relative contributions of electricity and magnetism are dependent on the frame of reference. Thus, special relativity "mixes" electricity and magnetism into a single, inseparable phenomenon called electromagnetism, analogous to how relativity "mixes" space and time into spacetime.
That's right, both forces are mediated by photons, and are fundamentally different aspects of the same force. It's like complaining that there is no such thing as centrifugal, and that everything need be redefined from the frame of centripetal force. Except, they're both the same force anyways, just from different reference frames. I mean, sure the concepts themselves are fundamentally different, and there is a distinct difference between the two, and they should not be confused... but they are still the same force, just from different reference frames.
So, no, mister "I cannot suffer a joke to live", they're not technically magnets... but then technically magnets aren't magnets, they're just electromagnetic systems aligned such that the aspect we call "magnetism" is expressed best to our frame of reference.
But in truth, unless you're going to argue that hydrogen bonding and molecular cohesion is driven by gravity, strong nuclear force, or weak nuclear force, then there is only one answer left: it's driven by electromagnetic force... and unless you're going to argue that magnetism is driven by gravity, strong nuclear force, or weak nuclear force, then there is only one answer left: it's driven by electromagnetic force.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
"That’s because real science thrives on criticism, since it’s only through critiques that the potential errors of a particular method can be assessed — that’s why research is supposed to be published in peer-reviewed journals as well. Suing is the antithesis of that idea. ..."
Unless you are talking about AGW; because then no criticism can be allowed. /snark off
"I didn't spend six years in Evil Medical School to be called 'Mr.Evil,' thank you very much!"
People who sell "hopes" at high prices steal money from believers who can meet their price, and peace of mind from believers who can't.
"Burzynski The Movie: Cancer Is Serious Business" puts quite a different spin on things. From the IMDB plot summary: Ph.D biochemist, Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, won one of the largest legal battles against the Food & Drug Administration in U.S. history. Dr. Burzynski and his patients endured a treacherous 14-year journey in order to obtain FDA-approved clinical trials for a new cancer-fighting drug. His groundbreaking medical and legal battles have brought revolutionary cancer treatment to the public. Upon completion, his treatment will be available the world over - sending a shock wave through the cancer industry
I come here for the love
van der Waal's force: ... includes: force between two permanent dipoles (Keesom force); force between a permanent dipole and a corresponding induced dipole (Debye force); force between two instantaneously induced dipoles (London dispersion force)
the van der Waals force (or van der Waals interaction)
Dipole:
molecules have such dipole moments due to non-uniform distributions of positive and negative charges on the various atoms
QED.
Steve Jobs wasn't terminal when he went for alternative treatment.
He was by the time he was finished with it.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
No, again, hydrogen bonding is not driven by magnetism.
You know why we don't talk about it being driven by gravity? Even though the particles have mass, exert gravitational attraction etc? Because it's a tiny, inconsequential aspect of the bonding. It would be incorrect to talk about the gravitational attraction when it plays a close to negligent role in day to day interactions of such a system.
This is the same reason, we don't talk about magnetism. It has as much relevance as gravity.
But it's good to see you finally started using a vaguely correct term to describe the situation.
No, again, hydrogen bonding is not driven by magnetism.
You know why we don't talk about it being driven by gravity? Even though the particles have mass, exert gravitational attraction etc? Because it's a tiny, inconsequential aspect of the bonding. It would be incorrect to talk about the gravitational attraction when it plays a close to negligent role in day to day interactions of such a system.
This is the same reason, we don't talk about magnetism. It has as much relevance as gravity.
But it's good to see you finally started using a vaguely correct term to describe the situation.
I know it's not gravity, and I know the physics formula involved in modeling gravity. But arguing that hydrogen bonding is not magnetism because it's a different aspect of electromagnetic force is not right either.
Electrostatic and magnetic force are the same force. There are only four forces out there at our energy levels: gravity, strong, weak, and electroMAGNETIC. So, unless you're here to tell me that hydrogen bonding is driven by gravity, strong or weak nuclear force, then it's driven by electromagnetic force. And unless you want to tell me that magnets are driven by gravity, strong, or weak nuclear force, then it's driven by electromagnetic force.
Jesus fucking christ... you're all caught up on this "it's not centrifugal, it's centripetal force" bullshit. It's the same god damn force driving magnets and hydrogen bonding.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS