[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Athens 

What about the FDA law suits and other court cases all of which have failed? That is what I was referring to. They don't even have enough evidence to prove otherwise in the court of law. They seem to be after him for reasons other then actual evidence and in this world its supposed to run on evidence being able to prove what you say. And at this moment the FDA can't prove a thing. Yet they also allow him to do trials with one hand and with the other hand try to destroy him. Explain that.

The court case was thrown out due to mistrial when the jury failed to agree. More than likely because half of them were idiot hippies who bought into his crappy science and claims he could cure cancer. I don't know why they didn't prosecute again since it was pretty obvious there were laws being broken. (He was not supposed to treat people from outside Texas or something like that).

Surely the fact they prosecuted him while still allowing trials is blindingly clear piece of evidence that they were NOT persecuting him? The only surprising thing is that he didn't get found guilty of laws and agreements that he was almost undoubtedly in breach of.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You were wondering before why people accuse you of attributing this treatment to "miracles" and "magic." This is why. Offloading the "magical" component to the immune system obfuscates things just barely enough to allow someone to convince themselves it's not really "magic," if they want to be convinced.

You seem to have swallowed his whole "the government is persecuting me" theory hook line and sinker.

Sounds about right. Unfortunately, the gullibility factor is why so many charlatans can continue to thrive. This guy is the infomercial salesman of cancer treatment.

Anyways, to put this discussion in Mac geek context, the question of "How do you cure cancer?" is even worse than "How do you program a computer?"

It is so vague as to become completely meaningless. What type of a computer? ENIAC? VAX 8000? iPad? What languages are available? What are you programming it to do? What is the target audience? Etc.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

The court case was thrown out due to mistrial when the jury failed to agree. More than likely because half of them were idiot hippies who bought into his crappy science and claims he could cure cancer. I don't know why they didn't prosecute again since it was pretty obvious there were laws being broken. (He was not supposed to treat people from outside Texas or something like that).

Surely the fact they prosecuted him while still allowing trials is blindingly clear piece of evidence that they were NOT persecuting him? The only surprising thing is that he didn't get found guilty of laws and agreements that he was almost undoubtedly in breach of.

Im so glad you agree that the FDA has not been able to prove its case on 4 + trials now? Millions and Millions spent attempting to prove there case?

[Waragainstsleep]

WTF?

Medical trials are not like court cases. The FDA doesn't set out to prove the treatment doesn't work while the researcher tries to prove it does. These are supposed to be scientific tests to see if a treatment works or not.
FDA permission is required in case someone wants to test whether or not arsenic can cure his enemies of dandruff. Its just a pity they don't seem to want to enforce more scientific rigour on to Burzynski's trials otherwise there would be no argument to be had here.

[Athens]

Then what was the FDA doing taking him to court if it was not to prove that it does not work and he shouldn't be allowed to offer treatment that it does? You confuse me. Whats the court cases about again?

[Waragainstsleep]

He has been involved in a number of court cases. Trying to work out exactly what happened when is much like trying to work out what medical he trials he conducted, which were finished and exactly what the results were.

Seems he was charged with shipping medicines interstate. He was also charged with prescribing and selling non-FDA approved drugs and mail fraud. There was a bit of an argument as to whether or not he was allowed to prescribe non-approved drugs.

There were also civil suits with an insurance company whose patients sued them to pay for his "treatment". They were joined in the suit by Burzynski himself. He was then countersued for racketeering.

The 21st Floor � Blog Archive � Doctor Burzynski’s miracle cure?

Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion

[Athens]

You would figure that if he was charged with selling non-FDA approved drugs and mail fraud that if the evidence supported the claims of the FDA that he would perhaps lose the court cases? Does it not strike you at all that its odd that the FDA keeps coming up with different things to take him to court with and not a single one has resulted in a victory?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Maybe he can afford better lawyers than they can

[Eug]

LOL. Athens has a hero.

[olePigeon]

One of my favorite websites has him on his list: Stanislaw Burzynski and "Antineoplastons"

[Waragainstsleep]

The FDA court case was ruled a mistrial when the jury couldn't agree an unanimous verdict. More than likely because they were idiot hippies or simply taken in by his crap like you seem to have been.

No-one seems to know why they didn't try him again.

[CollinG3G4]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I don't see how 4-6% cure rate is "magic" and is more then just phenylacetic acid.

A 96-94% mortality rate is the other side of the coin here.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Maybe he can afford better lawyers than they can

Or they don't have a case

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

One of my favorite websites has him on his list: Stanislaw Burzynski and "Antineoplastons"

This site had me until it got to the Japanese studies which did show some results which needed further study. This site claims it didn't. And what it presents is a adaption of a presentation made in 1997 and all the other facts it claims come from 1987 to 1993. Over 18 years old and predates any of the clinical trials done since then. Figure they would have more up to date info?

[Uncle Skeleton]

You don't have a case

[Athens]

a case in what?

[Athens]

Interesting article about testing and cancer treatments period

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/he...eful.html?_r=1 (Not related to Burzynski but not worthy enough for its own thread ether.

[olePigeon]

According to the American Cancer Society, the FDA tried to set up clinical trials for Stanislaw Burzynski, but when the FDA told him he had to do a randomized double-blind study in order to authorize the protein as a cancer treatment, Burzynski refused, and the clinical trial was ended.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Figure they would have more up to date info?

There is no "they," it's just one medical doctor. He manages the entire website himself, so not everything is updated all the time, no. However, I find it an immeasurably useful resource.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

According to the American Cancer Society, the FDA tried to set up clinical trials for Stanislaw Burzynski, but when the FDA told him he had to do a randomized double-blind study in order to authorize the protein as a cancer treatment, Burzynski refused, and the clinical trial was ended.

Can you hear that? Thats a very, very loud alarm bell ringing to any rational person. The ONLY reason he would refuse is because he is a con man.
There are so many alarm bells ringing about this guy its beyond me why you keep defending him.

He has literally no scientific proof of his claims to cure cancer;
He has made a lot of money from vulnerable people who despite his claims usually (if not without exception) die within a few years;
He has made no genuine attempt to get his supposed cure properly tested and approved and has in fact refused to test it;
He made a f*****g movie to peddle his wares FFS;

What more evidence do you need to see this guy is as bent as a $27 bill?

Next you'll be asking whether the Gerson institute is being persecuted by modern medicine. (You can ask Steve Jobs about how well that system works.)

Cancer is not a disease with an easy answer. The most promising research does leverage the body's immune system but it does so by marking the cancer cells so that they will be targeted and destroyed. This usually involves a custom built virus unique to each person and in fact each cancer, its not something that grows on trees or something you can filter out of urine or blood.

[Athens]

Waragainstsleep, did you even click the link provided by olePigeon to see that his claim he makes about the refused clinical trials are not even there.

[Waragainstsleep]

I did not, but the guy has had 30 years to do proper clinical trials and he hasn't bothered because he is making money. All his BS about being persecuted by the FDA has been clearly shown to be BS and all the trials he publishes have holes in their scientific method you could drive a bus full of creationists through.

[Waragainstsleep]

OlePigeon didn't phrase his remark very well in that it can be easily implied that the truth is being twisted but in essence the statement is correct. The FDA have told Burzynski what he needs to do and he has failed to do it. The NCI had a go and he pulled the plug. It amounts to the same thing.

It baffles me why the FDA is continuing to approve his "trials". If he refuses to try to get his treatment approved by doing real trials, then the only possible point is for him to line his pockets using a treatment he has no intention of ever testing rigorously.

[Athens]

Like I said before the FDA is screwing this one up pretty badly. They allow trials with one arm, but sue with the other arm and spending a lot of money doing it with no results. They are no closer to proving it does not work, and Burzynski is no closer to proving it does work. Its a pathetic situation because either he is taking money from people and offering nothing in return except false hope OR a better cancer treatment is going un used which could save more people with less side effects.

And one must now also consider the rethinking of treating cancer at all. Question about the last 30 years of Cancer treatment is being raised that the screening and treating is doing more harm then good. I posted the article above but been looking more into it and if it is the case that many cancers do not end up being fatal with growth stopping, it begs the question if treatment is killing people who would never have died. Many of the cancer treatments are so toxic that a person is so damaged that 6 years of life beyond treatment is considered fantastic. When my Aunte died of cancer the treatment was worst then the cancer with how sick it made her. I think a study needs to be done to look at how many people at a younger age actually need treatments going back to historical records to see how many people died of cancer between 20-40 vs those that died between 40-60.

That said im being general here. Obviously some cancers have to be treated and others have a very good success rate.

The FDA needs to do a trial itself of Burzynski's research to put to rest any doubt. It would be cheaper then the lawsuits.

Studies should be done to see if treatment of some cancers in the young do more harm then good.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Waragainstsleep, did you even click the link provided by olePigeon to see that his claim he makes about the refused clinical trials are not even there.

Yes it is. 4th, 5th, and 6th paragraphs under the "What is the Evidence?" section.

... NCI concluded that these results warranted further investigation through clinical trials at other medical centers. But because of disagreement between NCI researchers and Burzynski, the clinical trials were terminated in 1995. ... While many articles have been published and dozens of clinical trials against many types of cancer have been ongoing at Dr. Burzynski's clinic for several years, there have not been any randomized controlled trials—the type of study that is required for new anticancer drugs to be approved by the FDA and recommended by conventional oncologists.

Not only has the FDA given permission to do clinical trials as of 2008, the National Cancer Institute wanted to conduct further clinical trials at other medical centers. Trials that would include double-blind studies. Burzynski refuses to do a double-blind study, much less any sort of trial outside of his clinic or direct supervision.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Like I said before the FDA is screwing this one up pretty badly.

Burzynski is screwing this one up pretty badly. If I say it on the internet does that make it so?

They allow trials with one arm, but sue with the other arm and spending a lot of money doing it with no results. They are no closer to proving it does not work, and Burzynski is no closer to proving it does work.

It's not government's place to bring products to market. It would be unable to do that, even if we wanted it to do that, and we don't. Government's only workable role is to prevent those products that are brought to market from being harmful or fraudulent. If your complaint is that a product can't be proven to do what it's claiming to do, there is no scenario where that's the fault of any government body.

Its a pathetic situation because either he is taking money from people and offering nothing in return except false hope OR a better cancer treatment is going un used which could save more people with less side effects.
...
The FDA needs to do a trial itself of Burzynski's research to put to rest any doubt. It would be cheaper then the lawsuits.

Moral hazard. If you hold a patent on a cure for cancer, it is cheaper to sell it without waiting for testing, letting the FDA do your testing for you after the fact, than it is to do your own testing first. If a drug (or any product) really works, then it will be in the salesman's best interest to have it rigorously tested. They will make back their investment 100x over. If it doesn't really work, then that is the only situation in which the salesman is better served by stalling and finger pointing. If we do the salesman's testing for him, then every salesman will force us to do that. Moral hazard is the reason enforcement is the best option, even when the enforcement itself costs the state more to implement than the crime costs us in the first place. Because of deterrence. You can't set up the rules in a way that rewards breaking them; that is the essence of moral hazard.

[Athens]

You say refused, article says disagreement and early termination. Conjecture vs truth. Thank you. Either way that was 16 years ago, any thing more current?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Burzynski is screwing this one up pretty badly. If I say it on the internet does that make it so?

How, hes making a nice profit and staying in business. How is he screwing up on this one. Last time I checked the FDA was the one looking like a loser with many failed lawsuits, and the one losing money.

It's not government's place to bring products to market. It would be unable to do that, even if we wanted it to do that, and we don't. Government's only workable role is to prevent those products that are brought to market from being harmful or fraudulent. If your complaint is that a product can't be proven to do what it's claiming to do, there is no scenario where that's the fault of any government body.

Right.... are you telling me government has never had a role in anyway with bringing product to market. Besides validating a product would fall under the scope of checking if harmful or fraudulent. The real problem is who owns the patent and who can profit from it.

Moral hazard. If you hold a patent on a cure for cancer, it is cheaper to sell it without waiting for testing, letting the FDA do your testing for you after the fact, than it is to do your own testing first. If a drug (or any product) really works, then it will be in the salesman's best interest to have it rigorously tested. They will make back their investment 100x over. If it doesn't really work, then that is the only situation in which the salesman is better served by stalling and finger pointing. If we do the salesman's testing for him, then every salesman will force us to do that. Moral hazard is the reason enforcement is the best option, even when the enforcement itself costs the state more to implement than the crime costs us in the first place. Because of deterrence. You can't set up the rules in a way that rewards breaking them; that is the essence of moral hazard.

Except when testing is stalled by the agency that has the most to lose on it. But im also not a fan of private drug research anyways because the only motive is profit. I think public research is way more important.

[olePigeon]

He hasn't done any double-blind studies outside of his clinic. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out what the disagreement was about. The guy doesn't want to do any real clinical trials unless he can directly control the outcome. If he had nothing to hide, he would let other clinics do trials. Plain and simple.

The FDA gave him plenty of opportunities over the past 20 years. He has routinely avoided any responsible actions in demonstrating the effectiveness of his treatment. Now he wants to weasel his way into acceptance without following the rules. Instead of setting up a double-blind clinical trial, he makes a movie and stomps his feet about how life is so unfair.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Like I said before the FDA is screwing this one up pretty badly. They allow trials with one arm, but sue with the other arm and spending a lot of money doing it with no results. They are no closer to proving it does not work, and Burzynski is no closer to proving it does work. Its a pathetic situation because either he is taking money from people and offering nothing in return except false hope OR a better cancer treatment is going un used which could save more people with less side effects.

And one must now also consider the rethinking of treating cancer at all. Question about the last 30 years of Cancer treatment is being raised that the screening and treating is doing more harm then good. I posted the article above but been looking more into it and if it is the case that many cancers do not end up being fatal with growth stopping, it begs the question if treatment is killing people who would never have died. Many of the cancer treatments are so toxic that a person is so damaged that 6 years of life beyond treatment is considered fantastic. When my Aunte died of cancer the treatment was worst then the cancer with how sick it made her. I think a study needs to be done to look at how many people at a younger age actually need treatments going back to historical records to see how many people died of cancer between 20-40 vs those that died between 40-60.

That said im being general here. Obviously some cancers have to be treated and others have a very good success rate.

The FDA needs to do a trial itself of Burzynski's research to put to rest any doubt. It would be cheaper then the lawsuits.

Studies should be done to see if treatment of some cancers in the young do more harm then good.

Good grief. The FDA didn't file lawsuits against him, they prosecuted him for breaking the law. Criminal, not civil. The lawsuits were between Burzynski, an insurance company and some of their customers who wanted them to waste money on Burzynski's pointless treatment, because they were desperate and out of options and he no doubt gave them false hope.

Athens, you are going backwards. You need to stop reading the hippy propaganda and believing it. Steve Jobs would probably still be here if he hadn't wasted a year trying to treat cancer with strawberries and wheatgrass.

The FDAs role has already been addressed here. The onus is on the conman to prove he is not a conman but he clearly is. There is no other rational explanation for it. I'm sorry you lost your auntie to cancer but falling for this guy's lies (or any of the other hippy happy clappy "cures") will not bring her back or honour her memory. Modern medicine may not have all the answers yet but it will get them eventually and letting scumbags like Burzynski get away with doing what he does is not helping to advance the cause. To me it is clear that he is utterly evil and without decency. He is taking advantage of the sick and the desperate to line his own pockets by selling snake oil. He didn't invent it, but he has clearly got this racket figured out. The only thing the FDA has gotten wrong is that they haven't shut him down and locked him and thrown away the key.

Looking back at history is a favourite trick of the hippy practitioner. "People never got cancer in the past because because they only ate organic vegetables." is the usual reasoning. There actually is an element of truth to this, in that there are more toxins and carcinogens in the environment today than there used to be. Some of these get into our food chain and accumulate within our bodies, like heavy metals do in fish for example. This explains heightened rates of cancer amongst the young, though it is not the only factor. The depletion of the ozone layer means there is more UV about too for example.

Here is something you may not have worked out: Age causes cancer. DNA gets damaged without any need for an external damager as we age. It can happen when it replicates and the longer we live the more likely it becomes. If you live long enough, you will get cancer eventually. This is why its so much more common these days, because in the past the average life expectancy was closer to 30 than 75.

[Athens]

Retracted

Its both criminal cases and lawsuits all of which have been lost.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

How, hes making a nice profit and staying in business. How is he screwing up on this one. Last time I checked the FDA was the one looking like a loser with many failed lawsuits, and the one losing money.

I guess he's not being "persecuted" then after all

Right.... are you telling me government has never had a role in anyway with bringing product to market.

Not on purpose, no.

Besides validating a product would fall under the scope of checking if harmful or fraudulent.

They validate the testing. They don't do the testing.

The real problem is who owns the patent and who can profit from it.

Right... are you telling me the government has never approved a drug that it didn't already own the patent for?

Except when testing is stalled by the agency that has the most to lose on it.

All indications are that it is Burzynski doing the stalling, not the FDA.

But im also not a fan of private drug research anyways because the only motive is profit. I think public research is way more important.

And yet you're accusing the FDA of being motivated only by profit.

[Athens]

Burzynski

Wonder who will bother to read it.

A Clip

In 1990 the FDA tried once again to indict Burzynski, subpoenaing thousands of documents and many of his employees. Again the grand jury returned no indictment. In the 1990 July/August issue of Oncology News the cover story was devoted to Burzynski and his antineoplastons. The information was based on a symposium held in Geneva. This led to what seemed like the breakthrough Burzynski was looking for because Elan Pharmaceutical showed interest in sponsoring some of the FDA trials of antineoplaston. Due to the enormous cost and time of the FDA Drug approval process, about 10 years and $200 million (today it’s about $400 million) Burzynski needed the help of a large pharmaceutical company.

Elan would have unrestricted access to all of Burzynski’s research and methodology. He introduced Dvorit Samid to Elan since she had knowledge of antineoplastons after she had carried out some research for him in the late 1980’s. Burzynski had patented some of the chemical identities of his antineoplastons. He had not bothered patenting one of them, identified as the chemical phenylacetate, because it was of little use in treating cancer compared to the other antineoplastons. Three months later Elan decided against signing a contract with Burzynski stating the reason was because the lack of patent protection for phenylacetate. Dvorit Samid became the recipient of a grant from Elan to research phenylacetate.

In the fall of 1992 the NCI announced that it was going to run clinical trials on phenylacetate with Elan pharmaceuticals, the same treatment that Burzynski had concluded was far inferior to his other antineoplastons. There was at least one scientist at the NCI who had found that Burzynski’s antineoplastons worked. On May 24, 1993, the NCI’s Chief of Neuroradiology, Dr. Nicholas Patronas, testified at a hearing that was contemplating suspending Burzynski’s license that “antineoplastons are the most effective treatment for brain tumors I have ever seen.”(p363) Patronas was severely reprimanded for supporting Burzynski and later withdrew a paper he was going to give about antineoplastons at a conference in Sweden.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Burzynski

Wonder who will bother to read it.

A Clip

This is a totally biased website: "So the motive for my website is to inform people about what I have found out about this deplorable situation. An enormous motivator for me is my own child. When I found out that two-year-old Alexander Horwin's parents were refused a very promising nontoxic treatment for his type of cancer, Dr. Burzynski's Antineoplastons, I was flabbergasted."

In other words he started out by being convinced of Burzynski's legitimacy, he interviewed Burzynski, and lo and behold he still believes Burzynski's story. Then he published this article in "Clamour" magazine, which is "Your DIY Guide to Everyday Revolution." Wow how convincing. If only all of modern medicine worked this way, I could finally get my magnet therapy paid by insurance.

[Athens]

All the information any one is posting is coming from Biased sources. So i guess your saying then that FDA trials are not 10 years and millions of dollars? Or this just ignored because the source might be biased.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

All the information any one is posting is coming from Biased sources.

No. Some are more biased than others, some have only biases unrelated to our interest, and some have no bias at all. The personal website of a lone person with an axe to grind, who himself states that he was convinced before he started looking and nothing changed his mind, is pretty much at the bottom of the heap.

So i guess your saying then that FDA trials are not 10 years and millions of dollars? Or this just ignored because the source might be biased.

The requisites are no stricter for Burzy than for any other drugmaker. What makes it so much more onerous for him to comply?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What makes it so much more onerous for him to comply?

Nothing. I posed the same question to the various Chiropractic associations. It's not that it's difficult, it's just that they stand to lose a sh*t ton of money. They don't actually market anything of real value, but what they do market is the illusion of choice.

When you go to a doctor and they tell you there's something wrong, they then proceed to tell you what you need to do to fix it. Often it's something you don't want to do. People don't like decisions being made for them, they want to be able to make those decisions on their own.

So along comes "Doctor" Paul Sibo with miracle cures and treatments that just so happen to cure or treat your exact ailment. Hey, you can now choose to ignore your doctor and see this guy. You now have the great sensation that you're the one in control now, not the doctor. You get to make the choice regarding your own health, not someone else.

A year later your doctor asks how your treatment is going. You tell him with a smug face that you saw Doctor Paul Sibo and that you're going to be cured! Doctor tells you your ailment has advanced passed the point of any real treatment and you have a few years at most left to live.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No. Some are more biased than others, some have only biases unrelated to our interest, and some have no bias at all. The personal website of a lone person with an axe to grind, who himself states that he was convinced before he started looking and nothing changed his mind, is pretty much at the bottom of the heap.


The requisites are no stricter for Burzy than for any other drugmaker. What makes it so much more onerous for him to comply?

There is no such thing as no bias at all. If you think that actually exists your fooling yourself. And nothing posted in this thread yet has been even close to unbiased. Its all been either biased for or against the dr.

Do you really want me to answer the question about the difference between a Single person vs a Drug Company when it comes to raising 200 MILLION dollars?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Do you really want me to answer the question about the difference between a Single person vs a Drug Company when it comes to raising 200 MILLION dollars?

Too bad. A Single person also can't raise the capital to develop a mass produced car. Does that mean corners should be cut to make it affordable for that Single person to develop a mass produced car?

If he can't afford to develop a procedure/drug that's as guaranteed as possible to be safe and effective for humans, then he can't do it and he should find someone who can and sell his idea to them.

[Waragainstsleep]

If his treatment was worthwhile, one of the evil drug companies would have stolen it by now.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

There is no such thing as no bias at all. If you think that actually exists your fooling yourself. And nothing posted in this thread yet has been even close to unbiased. Its all been either biased for or against the dr.

What's the bias in this page?
Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion



Look, Athens, there is a big difference between finding sources that give objective facts that you can build your opinion off of, vs finding sources that tell you what opinion to have. The latter simply will not ever convince anyone, ever.

Do you really want me to answer the question about the difference between a Single person vs a Drug Company when it comes to raising 200 MILLION dollars?

Totally irrelevant. This is still no harder for Burzy than for any other entity in the history of medical science. Why should he get special treatment?

Nothing is stopping him from partnering with a larger organization (non-profit or otherwise) if necessary to satisfy the same standards that every other drugmaker has satisfied. Actually that's not true there is one thing that could stop him: if his drug is no good.

[Waragainstsleep]

If he had anything remotely credible, I'm sure that Bill Gates among others would be knocking his door down to pay the FDA fees.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

If he had anything remotely credible, I'm sure that Bill Gates among others would be knocking his door down to pay the FDA fees.

Oh im sure they already have stakes in drug companies already and would rather protect the profits produced from them then risk helping the sole patent owner of a drug that could be more beneficial.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I think he means Bill Gates the philanthropist, not Bill Gates the monopolist

[Waragainstsleep]

Burzynski Research Institute

[Athens]

Reading one of his clinical trials PHASE II STUDY OF ANTINEOPLASTONS A10 AND AS2-1 IN PATIENTS WITH CARCINOMA OF THE BLADDER Its pretty interesting the effort he goes to in his scam to make it look like "research"

[Uncle Skeleton]

The difference between legit and fraudulent research can be in one little detail. Like if you perform a clinical trial perfectly, except for the one little detail where you change the outcome from "negative" to "positive," then suddenly you're a fraud. Just from that one little change. Other little changes can do that too, like if you exclude subjects in a biased manner, or choose statistical methods that are more lenient than you claim they are.

So it's really not relevant that his proposal looks professional, if the contention is in his results, which the proposal doesn't even include.

[Waragainstsleep]

I'm not an MD but I would imagine that some might take issue with one of the first lines of that proposal.

1.2 Patient Eligibility

Patients with biopsy proven carcinoma of the bladder who are unlikely to have curative response to existing therapeutic regimens.

"unlikely to have" is somewhat vague and subjective and therefore not terribly scientific.

[Waragainstsleep]

While I'm at it, that particular study of bladder cancer is an interesting choice given that Dr. B. claims that antineoplastons are found naturally in urine.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The difference between legit and fraudulent research can be in one little detail. Like if you perform a clinical trial perfectly, except for the one little detail where you change the outcome from "negative" to "positive," then suddenly you're a fraud. Just from that one little change. Other little changes can do that too, like if you exclude subjects in a biased manner, or choose statistical methods that are more lenient than you claim they are.

So it's really not relevant that his proposal looks professional, if the contention is in his results, which the proposal doesn't even include.

And I totally and 100% agree with you. But has any one in all these years been able to prove fraudulent research. The only thing im seeing in all this is lots of doubters to a unpopular, unproven theory. As I said before in this thread, im not for this doctor or against him. I haven't seen anything to give me a clear opinion in either direction.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Then why did you post that last link?