FDA Denies New life Saving Brain Tumor Treatment to Kids.Says uses Chemotherapy Instead.

Rezlooper
reply to post by GetHyped

 

But it had already cured him once.

And how do we know this?

Rezlooper

benrl
experimental drugs are just that experimental.

Yes it worked once, as part of a scientific trial,

It may sound cruel but once that trial is over, why would he be any different than any other child with the same type of tumor?

Not trying to play devils advocate, but there are unknown with the drug, and further experimentation outside of a clinical controled trial could have unforeseen outcomes.

protocols exist for a reason.

What the heck unknowns are there to know when the kid may die anyways. My God, what have we become? Who is the government to say when it should be up to parents and doctors what treatment they try.

And yes it is cruel. That's the point, why shouldn't any other kid get the same treatment. Problem is...the experiment worked, but maybe it worked a little to good, right? Threatening the traditional three treatments and their billions in profits..chemo, radiation and surgery. Don't you find it funny that there are all these cancer research organizations that raise umpteen amounts of money and yet, how long has it been since a new cancer treatment option (approved by the corrupt FDA) has been made available to the public. Screw these ass holes and turn to alternative treatments, there are many life-saving options that have proven effective time and time again, but the FDA will do whatever it has to keep that silent, working their tails off for Big Pharma, as evidenced with the imprisonment of Kevin Trudeau. Our lives matter none...Big Pharma profits are all that matter to the people who we are supposed to rely on to keep us safe...the FDA!

Rant over...

New therapies for cancer are approved pretty much every year both in the US and Europe.
The reason they get approved is that they are proven to work.
The reason the alternative "therapies" are not approved is that they are NOT proven to work.
If they were proven then they wouldn't be alternative, they would just be called therapies.



BTW, Kevin Trudeau was a scam artist, nothing more and nothing less.

reply to post by GetHyped


The article states it cured him but then re-occurred later.

Rezlooper
reply to post by GetHyped

 

The article states it cured him but then re-occurred later.

I.e. an unsupported claim.

Pardon?

Rezlooper

benrl
experimental drugs are just that experimental.

Yes it worked once, as part of a scientific trial,

It may sound cruel but once that trial is over, why would he be any different than any other child with the same type of tumor?

Not trying to play devils advocate, but there are unknown with the drug, and further experimentation outside of a clinical controled trial could have unforeseen outcomes.

protocols exist for a reason.

What the heck unknowns are there to know when the kid may die anyways. My God, what have we become? Who is the government to say when it should be up to parents and doctors what treatment they try.

And yes it is cruel. That's the point, why shouldn't any other kid get the same treatment. Problem is...the experiment worked, but maybe it worked a little to good, right? Threatening the traditional three treatments and their billions in profits..chemo, radiation and surgery. Don't you find it funny that there are all these cancer research organizations that raise umpteen amounts of money and yet, how long has it been since a new cancer treatment option (approved by the corrupt FDA) has been made available to the public. Screw these ass holes and turn to alternative treatments, there are many life-saving options that have proven effective time and time again, but the FDA will do whatever it has to keep that silent, working their tails off for Big Pharma, as evidenced with the imprisonment of Kevin Trudeau. Our lives matter none...Big Pharma profits are all that matter to the people who we are supposed to rely on to keep us safe...the FDA!

Rant over...

New therapies for cancer are approved pretty much every year both in the US and Europe.
The reason they get approved is that they are proven to work.
The reason the alternative "therapies" are not approved is that they are NOT proven to work.
If they were proven then they wouldn't be alternative, they would just be called therapies.



BTW, Kevin Trudeau was a scam artist, nothing more and nothing less.

Could you post some of these other cancer treatments...hence, I say treatment rather than cure because they haven't found a cure yet...but alternative treatments do cure cancer, especially baking soda, at a cost of about $2 and some molasses to mix it with.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Rezlooper

Could you post some of these other cancer treatments...hence, I say treatment rather than cure because they haven't found a cure yet...but alternative treatments do cure cancer, especially baking soda, at a cost of about $2 and some molasses to mix it with.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

How do you know it wasn't spontaneous remission? Fact is, you don't. This is precisely why proper clinical trials are needed to demonstrate efficacy.

Rezlooper

Pardon?

Rezlooper

benrl
experimental drugs are just that experimental.

Yes it worked once, as part of a scientific trial,

It may sound cruel but once that trial is over, why would he be any different than any other child with the same type of tumor?

Not trying to play devils advocate, but there are unknown with the drug, and further experimentation outside of a clinical controled trial could have unforeseen outcomes.

protocols exist for a reason.

What the heck unknowns are there to know when the kid may die anyways. My God, what have we become? Who is the government to say when it should be up to parents and doctors what treatment they try.

And yes it is cruel. That's the point, why shouldn't any other kid get the same treatment. Problem is...the experiment worked, but maybe it worked a little to good, right? Threatening the traditional three treatments and their billions in profits..chemo, radiation and surgery. Don't you find it funny that there are all these cancer research organizations that raise umpteen amounts of money and yet, how long has it been since a new cancer treatment option (approved by the corrupt FDA) has been made available to the public. Screw these ass holes and turn to alternative treatments, there are many life-saving options that have proven effective time and time again, but the FDA will do whatever it has to keep that silent, working their tails off for Big Pharma, as evidenced with the imprisonment of Kevin Trudeau. Our lives matter none...Big Pharma profits are all that matter to the people who we are supposed to rely on to keep us safe...the FDA!

Rant over...

New therapies for cancer are approved pretty much every year both in the US and Europe.
The reason they get approved is that they are proven to work.
The reason the alternative "therapies" are not approved is that they are NOT proven to work.
If they were proven then they wouldn't be alternative, they would just be called therapies.



BTW, Kevin Trudeau was a scam artist, nothing more and nothing less.

Could you post some of these other cancer treatments...hence, I say treatment rather than cure because they haven't found a cure yet...but alternative treatments do cure cancer, especially baking soda, at a cost of about $2 and some molasses to mix it with.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Some new ones like brachytherapy, laser ablation, monoclonal antibody therapy, hormonal therapy, angiogenesis inhibitors, vaccines, stem cell transplants, radiofrequency ablation, photodynamic therapy etc.

I have to disagree with you on the baking soda and molasses "cure" though.
Regardless that it's mixed with molasses, baking soda, when it reaches the stomach, is converted and neutralised into water, salt and a little bit of CO2. Nothing of it actually gets through the stomach and into the bloodstream.
The whole premise of baking soda is that of the "alkaline" diet which is complete hokum (if you understand even the slightest about human physiology you'll know why it's hokum).
It also assumes that all cancers are the same, which they're not.

I'm more than happy to change what I know though but it will have to be on the same level as the other science I accept.
Namely it has to be properly proven and reproducible.
As I posted earlier, I don't accept testimonials.

Rezlooper

Pardon?

Rezlooper

benrl
experimental drugs are just that experimental.

Yes it worked once, as part of a scientific trial,

It may sound cruel but once that trial is over, why would he be any different than any other child with the same type of tumor?

Not trying to play devils advocate, but there are unknown with the drug, and further experimentation outside of a clinical controled trial could have unforeseen outcomes.

protocols exist for a reason.

What the heck unknowns are there to know when the kid may die anyways. My God, what have we become? Who is the government to say when it should be up to parents and doctors what treatment they try.

And yes it is cruel. That's the point, why shouldn't any other kid get the same treatment. Problem is...the experiment worked, but maybe it worked a little to good, right? Threatening the traditional three treatments and their billions in profits..chemo, radiation and surgery. Don't you find it funny that there are all these cancer research organizations that raise umpteen amounts of money and yet, how long has it been since a new cancer treatment option (approved by the corrupt FDA) has been made available to the public. Screw these ass holes and turn to alternative treatments, there are many life-saving options that have proven effective time and time again, but the FDA will do whatever it has to keep that silent, working their tails off for Big Pharma, as evidenced with the imprisonment of Kevin Trudeau. Our lives matter none...Big Pharma profits are all that matter to the people who we are supposed to rely on to keep us safe...the FDA!

Rant over...

New therapies for cancer are approved pretty much every year both in the US and Europe.
The reason they get approved is that they are proven to work.
The reason the alternative "therapies" are not approved is that they are NOT proven to work.
If they were proven then they wouldn't be alternative, they would just be called therapies.



BTW, Kevin Trudeau was a scam artist, nothing more and nothing less.

Could you post some of these other cancer treatments...

Here you go.

BayesLike

championoftruth
Glad you can sit back and take a measured approach.
I bet you would sing a different tune if it was your child or if it was you personally.
You view would change instantly.

The above is the kind of thinking that Obamacare is designed to stop. The discussion is already steadily shifting in professional and political circles to: the cost for one to possibly be saved vs the benefit to many being saved for the same cost. Why should any one person's child be more important than anyone else's when there is an essentially fixed amount of spending available.

Go look at Canada and England -- in their "superior" systems these types of decisions are made daily. The problem is, as a parent, you have little choice of other options in those systems. It's where we are headed.

Actually, Obamacare will make such problems worse.




As for the topic. Yes, the FDA is one of the worst managed and inefficient bureaucracies we have and it is one of the primary reasons why new drugs are so expensive. I don't buy into the tin-foil that FDA does it to support the "more profitable" chemotherapy...this drug IS a type of chemotherapy. What this is, is an example of a bloated and too powerful governmental regulatory agency--exactly what so many Americans want when they demand more government regulation to take care of them and fix their problem.

NavyDoc

BayesLike

championoftruth
Glad you can sit back and take a measured approach.
I bet you would sing a different tune if it was your child or if it was you personally.
You view would change instantly.

The above is the kind of thinking that Obamacare is designed to stop. The discussion is already steadily shifting in professional and political circles to: the cost for one to possibly be saved vs the benefit to many being saved for the same cost. Why should any one person's child be more important than anyone else's when there is an essentially fixed amount of spending available.

Go look at Canada and England -- in their "superior" systems these types of decisions are made daily. The problem is, as a parent, you have little choice of other options in those systems. It's where we are headed.

Actually, Obamacare will make such problems worse.




As for the topic. Yes, the FDA is one of the worst managed and inefficient bureaucracies we have and it is one of the primary reasons why new drugs are so expensive. I don't buy into the tin-foil that FDA does it to support the "more profitable" chemotherapy...this drug IS a type of chemotherapy. What this is, is an example of a bloated and too powerful governmental regulatory agency--exactly what so many Americans want when they demand more government regulation to take care of them and fix their problem.

FDA funding comes from Big Pharma.Their staff come from Big Pharma.
He who pays the piper calls the tune.
Can I pay you a lion bucks to promote Chemotherapy as a health drink?

So sad there are alternative treatments, but testing on humans has been minimized until recently where they approved tests for children with epilepsy. This medicine has been found to shrink tumors as well. Also testing has been approved for PTSD from the FDA.
I am glad the ball is finally rolling in this area. I am glad truth can still rear it's ugly (beautiful in this case) head.
A related documentary

reply to post by championoftruth


Actually, not as true as you think. Over the past decade in the USDA at least, the regulators have shifted. It used to be that they were people who had at least some experience with the industries they were dealing with, but increasingly, they are young, profoundly ignorant and take an instantly adversarial approach to the industry. You might think this is a good thing, but actually it causes a lot more problems than it uncovers.

Why?

If you are a good inspector/regulator with some idea how the industry you are working with operates, you understand why things are as they are and how things operate. This means you understand what explanations are given you when you ask questions, you can read the documentation - both up front and between the lines, you can expect to go out on campus inspections and spot problems that are real problems and inconsistencies. You also know when you are working the regulatory process when is a reasonable expectation and what isn't.

If you have no experience with the industry and are completely ignorant of how it operates, you know none of that above. Then, if you take an automatically adversarial approach on top of all of that, you become an obstacle that creates more problems than you will ever solve because you will only get in the way and miss things that really shouldn't be missed. Any industry that is really looking to pull the wool over your eyes will know right away that you don't know what you're doing and know exactly how to hide what they don't want you to see. Then, all they have left to do is dodge/deal with your idiocy.

championoftruth

NavyDoc

BayesLike

championoftruth
Glad you can sit back and take a measured approach.
I bet you would sing a different tune if it was your child or if it was you personally.
You view would change instantly.

The above is the kind of thinking that Obamacare is designed to stop. The discussion is already steadily shifting in professional and political circles to: the cost for one to possibly be saved vs the benefit to many being saved for the same cost. Why should any one person's child be more important than anyone else's when there is an essentially fixed amount of spending available.

Go look at Canada and England -- in their "superior" systems these types of decisions are made daily. The problem is, as a parent, you have little choice of other options in those systems. It's where we are headed.

Actually, Obamacare will make such problems worse.




As for the topic. Yes, the FDA is one of the worst managed and inefficient bureaucracies we have and it is one of the primary reasons why new drugs are so expensive. I don't buy into the tin-foil that FDA does it to support the "more profitable" chemotherapy...this drug IS a type of chemotherapy. What this is, is an example of a bloated and too powerful governmental regulatory agency--exactly what so many Americans want when they demand more government regulation to take care of them and fix their problem.

FDA funding comes from Big Pharma.Their staff come from Big Pharma.
He who pays the piper calls the tune.
Can I pay you a lion bucks to promote Chemotherapy as a health drink?

FDA funding does not come from "big pharma." It is a governmental organization that is funded through our tax dollars.

I hate the FDA, but beckybecky, you're a shill, and nothing you said here is true. Bye.

hmm, certainly i agree that the FDA is corrupt and basically a puppet of certain corporations but most serious diseases have so few sufferers that there's no profit in their research in the first place so i have doubts the big pharmaceutical corporations have much reason to suppress or interfere with "cures" or other companies research.

what i think is that many people create such conspiracies due to grief and fear of losing loved ones, it makes them feel consoled in the thought that there might be hope for that person or themselves, not only that but in the wake of their death it creates community in the sense that they can resolve their feelings of frustration, anger and sadness by voicing it with others who understand their situation, it helps the grieving process for many but those who can't let go only suffer and perpetuate what their blinded emotions tell them.

it's sad really but medicine is still rather primitive even if many refuse to see it, it's like a kid in third grade learning a new language, they know they can speak some words but can't quite grasp their meaning or their correct pronunciation and they are very lost with much of the language.

but that said in that situation i rather accept our limitation and not risk everything, at least while still a child because the results could be an early end, it may sound like a contradiction saying to embrace life and not risk it for a possible cure, yet accepting that you may die without trying a possible cure.

just accept it and wait, if you rush it you might end up suffering more and live a much shorter life without any fulfillment or enjoyment. let those at the end or the older sufferers risk it, they can afford to since life has long since become exhausting for them that they'd rather risk everything and try anything to end their suffering even if death came, either way, drugged for life, cured or even dead will be a good result.

don't expose a child to such negativity while they still enjoy life and still hope for things, the ignorance of that time is all that's left and once it's gone it becomes so easy to get lost, depressed and angry, to wish an ending would hurry up, good or bad.

GetHyped

Rezlooper

Could you post some of these other cancer treatments...hence, I say treatment rather than cure because they haven't found a cure yet...but alternative treatments do cure cancer, especially baking soda, at a cost of about $2 and some molasses to mix it with.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

How do you know it wasn't spontaneous remission? Fact is, you don't. This is precisely why proper clinical trials are needed to demonstrate efficacy.

What is spontaneous remission?

AS stated the FDA is NOT interested in your health but control.
A organization which only approves something that will either Keep People Ill
or ensure their bank accounts are overfilling.
With that being said..
My girlfriend worked in a hospital for 15 years in the oncology dept and a few other key
positions in the facility. It was well known by many that chemotherapy is more detrimental to the body
then benefits it. It has also been researched that it is known to actually GROW tumors, not destroy them.

Lil Drummerboy
AS stated the FDA is NOT interested in your health but control.
A organization which only approves something that will either Keep People Ill
or ensure their bank accounts are overfilling.
With that being said..
My girlfriend worked in a hospital for 15 years in the oncology dept and a few other key
positions in the facility. It was well known by many that chemotherapy is more detrimental to the body
then benefits it. It has also been researched that it is known to actually GROW tumors, not destroy them.

Hail !Hail ! I stand up and salute you Siree.

You are very intelligent and I am amazed that some people still have the capacity to see through
the MSM veil of deception.It's well known and acknowledged that the cancer comes back with a vengeance after poisonous chemotherapy is given which consists of gamma radiation and a patented cocktail of toxic landfill chemicals.

You have given me fresh vigor in my quest as a Champion Of Truth as I charge the evil windmills of Deception , Connivance and Suppression.

championoftruth

Lil Drummerboy
AS stated the FDA is NOT interested in your health but control.
A organization which only approves something that will either Keep People Ill
or ensure their bank accounts are overfilling.
With that being said..
My girlfriend worked in a hospital for 15 years in the oncology dept and a few other key
positions in the facility. It was well known by many that chemotherapy is more detrimental to the body
then benefits it. It has also been researched that it is known to actually GROW tumors, not destroy them.

Hail !Hail ! I stand up and salute you Siree.

You are very intelligent and I am amazed that some people still have the capacity to see through
the MSM veil of deception. It's well known and acknowledged that the cancer comes back with a vengeance after poisonous chemotherapy is given which consists of gamma radiation and a patented cocktail of toxic landfill chemicals.

You have given me fresh vigor in my quest as a Champion Of Truth as I charge the evil windmills of Deception , Connivance and Suppression.

edit on 30-3-2014 by championoftruth because: (no reason given)

Even though you're wrong with that fallacy guess what?
Burzynski "treats" patients with chemotherapy.
And chemotherapy, as it's name suggests, is therapy using chemicals. It doesn't include "gamma radiation".
Radiation therapy is a different type of therapy called...wait for it.....radiotherapy.
(By the way beckybecky, you've used the same argument in several threads all with the same mistake. Don't you learn?)

"Wayne Merritt, a farmer from Armuchee, Ga., went to see Burzynski in 2009 after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. He had hoped to receive antineoplastons, an unapproved drug that Burzynski legally prescribes through an FDA-approved clinical trial. Merritt didn’t qualify for the trial, and was disappointed to realize that the drugs he had been prescribed were conventional chemotherapy. Merritt abandoned the treatments after only a few weeks after learning that they would cost $30,000 a month.”
burzynskiscam.com...

Oops!

reply to post by championoftruth


Well it seems there has been yet another sorcha faal website exposed by BB.


I have read a lot of articles about that Quack and his scams.

At 'The Houston Cancer Quack,' Skeptics call on Congress to investigate Stanislaw Burzynski

As regular readers of this blog know, I have cancer, and I believe the law should show no mercy to people who exploit cancer patients and their loved ones. While it's hard to imagine that someone could be so heartless, there are people in the world who profit from our fear, and the lack of education around science and evidence-based medicine. The result of this cruelty: our suffering and death.

One doctor who has been long the target of such "false hope" concern is Stanislaw Burzynski, of "antineoplaston" fame. The Houston-based provider was recently featured in a major investigative takedown in USA Today reported by health journalist Liz Szabo.

Seems the OP website will run anything for money.

USA TODAY investigation finds experts questioning why Houston doctor is allowed to continue to offer his alternative cancer treatment with antineopplastons

What are antineoplastons you ask??

He originally synthesized these sodium-rich drugs from blood and urine — the urine collected from public parks, bars and penitentiaries. Although they've been made in a lab since 1980, they still carry a distinctive and unpleasant odor. And while the experimental drugs have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, Burzynski has described them like the holy grail of cancer therapy: safe, natural and highly effective. He has also prescribed them as a treatment for AIDS, lupus and other conditions.