Could you please sign this petition to save the life of a baby?
PS. Not that I didn't expect it but on other boards I'm a bit irked by some responses. Here are the real kickers.1. Insurance companies won't throw away free money2. Why help if it's fatal and he'll die anyway3. I won't sign until abortion ends4. Why help if they live in the ghetto5. I...
Asked by Deeanna Bialik 1 year ago.
PS. Not that I didn't expect it but on other boards I'm a bit irked by some responses. Here are the real kickers. 1. Insurance companies won't throw away free money 2. Why help if it's fatal and he'll die anyway 3. I won't sign until abortion ends 4. Why help if they live in the ghetto 5. I won't sign because insurance companies don't kill babies. Hmmm, so charging $3000 a bottle for buphenyl and watching the parents move into extreme poverty and then have their son die and an enormous bill isn't killing? Then what is it?! Answered by Gricelda Pittenger 1 year ago.
Done, I am shocked these poor kids cant get help from insurance companies, good luck with everything x Answered by Andre Vandewater 1 year ago.
thanks. i don't have properly-known about this if I had no longer considered this and that i visit inform my acquaintances. i imagine you've finished Nazanin a good service via spreading her tale. this is a maddening and eye starting account. Answered by Dana Kinyon 1 year ago.
signed! i hope diseases like this didnt exist!! :( Answered by Grant Speziale 1 year ago.
What are your opinions or thoughts on Burzynski’s treatment vs. FDA approved treatments?
@April, and yes everything in medicine or any other science subject should be considered when it is anticipated to make an impact. Even if it is peptides and amino acid derivatives found in urine.
Asked by Sade Lucatero 1 year ago.
Of course this question has come up many times before and will come up again many times, but note, this question is in regards to the TREATMENT only…. What do you think of conventional cancer therapy (both chemotherapy and radiation)? Not only does conventional therapy attack cancerous cells, but it also destroys normal cells. I know someone who is elderly and has cancer. He was subjected to chemotherapy over the past several years. Thousands upon thousands of dollars (six digit figure) were spent over these several years for him to receive this treatment. Today however, was the weakest I have ever seen him due to the side effects this type of treatment causes. His body is so weak, that he has to stay away from chemotherapy for a while. My question is, does this FDA approved conventional treatment at times do more harm on the body than it does good? Now, what do you think of antineoplaston treatment administered by the Burzynski Clinic? Note, I understand the legal issues involved between Dr. Burzynski and the FDA. But just focusing on the treatment and the treatment only, do you think targeting cancer causing genes specifically using antineoplastons is a better way to treat cancer? Also, do you know what toll this type of treatment can have on the body and can you compare it to the toll caused by conventional treatment? Best answer goes to whoever can show positives and negatives (opinions/thoughts) of both treatments and what they think overall is the better way of treating cancer patients. Answered by Iliana Deasy 1 year ago.
I know that I am alive today because of conventional treatments. So are 2 of my sisters and a brother. I know there are statistics that show more than half those diagnosed with cancer survive due to conventional treatments. I also know there has not been a single, independently verified case of someone being cured by Burzynski. He is either unwilling or unable to subject his treatments to review. This is why they have not been approved. Add: i too have seen testimonials by "cured patients" however none of them have been prepared to disclose medical records so there is no proof they ever had cancer or that Burzynskis treatments were the reason theyu are cured. If he was as good as they say, why is this information unavailable? Anyone can say anything in a video, I like scientific proof, which is sadly lacking. Answered by Ashlea Belonger 1 year ago.
When people cancer there is desperation, sadness, denial and acceptance. There is going to be people that knowing your desperation try to sell a magic, the best treatment and cures for terminal diseases. The truth cancer treatment Resulst are Measure by survival and remission. Remission is common and very few cancers get cured. Lymphoma, skin cancer, testicule, somo localized cancer that get diagnosed early on stage I. there is a lot of CHARACTERs that may offer cures in unconventional way, they are quacks and they have a lucrative intention behind the treatments they offered.If chemotherapy, radiation and surgery does not cure cancers, perhaps nothing else but a miracle. Answered by Tamika Ishmael 1 year ago.
Anyone who has been taking chemo for years has advanced cancer and the treatment is most likely to extend his life not cure him. Not everyone gets sick and weak as you describe taking chemo. We have laws in this country making illegal to state a pill can make you lose 30 pounds, a cream can make wrinkles disappear or a therapy can cure or reduce cancer if there is no proof they can do those things. People who testify their cancer was cured is not proof and neither is a “documentary” made by the person pushing their snake oil. There will always be people out there taking advantage of desperate people. Answered by Eva Kitten 1 year ago.
In all honesty, I know you have little to no experience with cancer and various treatments. If you knew anything, you would know that was a mockumentary. Just because it was on the internet doesn't make it real. His useless treatment uses a peptide in urine. I can't believe you were gullible enough to think pee therapy cures cancer. Your chemo stats are way off. Answered by Leatha Owusu 1 year ago.
Burzynski's treatment doesn't treat or cure anything. It's amazing that the more you change for a scam, the more people will fall for it. Answered by Joye Armocida 1 year ago.
Dr. B has a reputation of being a quack. I also had conventional (surgery, chemo, radiation, hormone therapy) (cut, poison, burn) for stage 3 cancer and am completely fine now. It wasn't that bad at all and am thankful for my docs' care. Answered by Denise Dursch 1 year ago.
The cancer therapy with antineoplastons made by the Burzynski Clinic requires a DNA sequencer to be customized?
Why the personalized cancer therapy made at Burzynski Clinic is so expansive? Is the price of DNA sequencing the reason? Thanks! [eric campos bastos guedes][2013.05.22]
Asked by Shantell Odien 1 year ago.
There is no cancer therapy at the Burzynski Clinic. Answered by Romeo Fadri 1 year ago.
ideally, you need to get a minimum of 6 hours of sleep each nighttime, on an identical time as getting 8 or perhaps 9 is a lot best... yet that the "minimum" volume of sleep mandatory relies upon on what form of projects you prefer to accomplish in the time of the day, and how your physique works. Distinguishing the minimum volume of sleep mandatory isn't precise, as this fairly relies upon on the guy. Getting in basic terms 4 hours of sleep for an prolonged volume of time might, in spite of the fact that, fairly placed on down your device, top to ailment, familiar fatigue and different wellness issues.. Answered by Margurite Mcdougald 1 year ago.
Its really expensive because they need to get lots of your money before you realize that they are selling very expensive snake oil not medication or treatments. Keep your money and have real treatments. Answered by Irena Cannata 1 year ago.
It's expensive because they are money-grabbing snake oil sales people who are preying on the emotions of those with cancer. Their treatments do not work. Answered by Maranda Mihelic 1 year ago.
Burzynski is a fraud, banned by the US. Answered by Moon Smolnicky 1 year ago.
What is your opinion of Dr. Burzynski's cancer treatment?
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/ I saw a brief excerpt from a documentary about his cancer treatment on youtube.
Asked by Laraine Vanderheiden 1 year ago.
The movie is a lie. The process has been tested by the National Cancer Institute and it doesn't work. All those cute people announcing they are cured cannot be found for check ups or testing. I've had chemo. Chemo doesn't kill people. People die because the cancer is stronger than the chemo can deal with. The Burzynski rip off starts at $100 000. You don't get anything for that. The clinic can't treat people legally so they call it "clinical trials." Answered by Adella Casteel 1 year ago.
It's a scam. Give me a day and I'll make you a video for youtube that proves that black is white. The people who rant about how good his treatment was are not to be found if anyone wants to check on them. This, unlike other dubious treatments has been tested and failed miserably. He is forbidden to push his treatment in the US, and was fined for doing so. Save your money for real treatment. Answered by Mabel Lyday 1 year ago.
That wasn't a documentary. It's a movie made for gullible people to think it's a documentary. Urine peptide is not a cancer cure and he hasn't cured anyone. Answered by Stephenie Coca 1 year ago.
If it were proven to actually work, patients wouldn't be seeing any other doctor. His work has not been duplicated and is not respected. That website is his advertisement, not a factual documentary. Answered by Colene Stredny 1 year ago.
A quack peddling a scam with no scientific proof that it works. Answered by Ofelia Portalatin 1 year ago.
well considering the fda took him to court Several times for a treatment that din't work? I dont think so I think the fda would be mad if it did work! they can't sell their drugs if everyone is healthy besides in lab animals the coconut oil stops the cancer cells from forming and in humans who know and take the oil they all say the cancer shrinks! type in coconut oil health benifits and you'll see the list! Answered by Sam Swaggerty 1 year ago.
Dr. Burzynski thoughts? Serious answers only, please.?
EDIT: Thank you to all replying. I've seen a lot of answers coinciding with my views but I wanted to se what others had to say as well as what others have found.
Asked by Albertina Kanahele 1 year ago.
In one of my university classes, we watched most of the documentary "Cancer: A Serious Business." This spurred me to look it up, and not just the documentary's side but the opposing side as well because Abraham Lincoln once said, "Don't trust everything you read on the Internet." I have found a lot for both sides, so now I am wondering what others interested in science and medicine (Professional and Hobbyists) have to say about the controversial Dr. Burzynski and his antineoplastines. Answered by Christoper Irvan 1 year ago.
You want serious answers while expecting us to believe any university would refer to that as a documentary. Anyone who knows a thing about science and medicine can clearly see he is a fraud. Answered by Brice Mazzola 1 year ago.
He's a fraud. Guess who made the film. Answered by Jaqueline Junkersfeld 1 year ago.
What toxins frequently build up in the human body?
There are many people who practice various detox programs everything from sweating in a Sauna to fasting to herbal teas. I believe that toxins do build up in the human body, but I've always wondered exactly which toxins they are. What are the specific toxins that build up in the human body and where do they...
Asked by Celestina Ubaldo 1 year ago.
There are many people who practice various detox programs everything from sweating in a Sauna to fasting to herbal teas. I believe that toxins do build up in the human body, but I've always wondered exactly which toxins they are. What are the specific toxins that build up in the human body and where do they frequently come from? . Answered by Connie Batun 1 year ago.
Most of the worrying toxins seem to come from chemicals that we have produced ourselves (listed below). Those of most concern are those that have an affinity for fats (rather than water) and therefore accumulate in fat deposits in the food chain, rather than being expelled. And the concentrations increase the higher up the food chain you go, often making human beings with the highest concentrations. Studies in the Arctic show humans and animals with very high concentrations of industrial chemicals. In addition to chemical toxins, there are huge numbers of naturally occurring toxins, which is why we have a liver and kidneys to process and expel toxins from our body. The argument always seems to be that we have the ability to eliminate toxins, therefore we cannot accumulate toxins. However, this assumes that the body's systems are functioning effectively, AND that these systems can cope with the load. The classic example to contradict this assumption is a hangover, whereby the body has been overloaded to a point where the liver and kidneys cannot process the toxins quickly enough. In the normal course of time, these organs catch up, provided you do not continue to overload the system. Where we have problems is in: 1. the quantity of toxins with which the body must now cope; and 2. the efficiency of our elimination systems. Firstly, our environment does contain far more chemicals than ever before, despite the eradication of some horrendous products over time. It is a product of the number of chemicals used and the number of people using them. Secondly, our systems are often either run-down from the load, and/or our diets are sorely lacking such that our systems are unable to operate at optimum levels. I don't know much about a lot of the fad detox programs. I am sure that many things can help the body better process toxins, but I doubt a single drink (for example) is capable of performing major changes. However, changing your diet and living habits can reduce the load of toxins (giving your system a chance to catch up) and provide your body with the nutrients it needs to allow the system to work optimally. The original detox programs were designed for the above. They are simply very healthy diets and lifestyle changes that ensure the specific nutrients needed by the kidneys and liver are included. As for the list of toxins, they are listed below (further info in the links). I do not have any info on which of these might be fat soluble. - Mercury (Harms brain development and function) Accumulates in seafood. - Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (Linked to cancer) Accumulates in food chain. - Polybrominated dibenzodioxins and furans (PBDD/F) (Toxic to developing endocrine, i.e. hormone system) Accumulate in food chain. - Perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) (Linked to cancer, birth defects, and more) Accumulate in the environement and the food chain. - Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans (PBCD/F) (Cause cancer in humans. Very toxic to developing endocrine, i.e. hormone system) Persist for decades in the environment. - Organochlorine pesticides (OCs) (Cause cancer and numerous reproductive effects) Persist for decades in the environment. Accumulate up the food chain to main. - Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) (Adversely affects brain development and the thyroid) Accumulates in the food chain and human tissues. - Alkylphenol compounds – (Mimic natural estrogen hormones and have been shown to alter the sexual development in some organisms, for example in fish. - Polychlorinated Naphthalenese (PCNs) (Cause liver and kidney damage) Contaminate the food chain. - Polychlorinated buphenyls (PCBs) (Cause cancer and nervous system problems) Persist for decades in the environment. Accumulate up the food chain, to main. - Triclosan (Affect liver enzymes in rat studies; poses multidrug resistance to Pseudomonas aeruginosa, a cause of death in many hospital-acquired infections due to its intrinsic resistance to many antibiotics) - Artificial Musks (Disrupts hormones. One type, musk xylene, causes cancer at high concentrations, in animal studies) Due to their persistence and extensive use artificial musk have become widely distributed throughout the environment. - Perfluorinated compounds (Cause a wide range of toxic effects on the liver of exposed laboratory rats) - Phthalates (Some phthalates are reproductive toxicants and particularly affect the testes) Phthalates have become one of the most ubiquitous chemicals in the global environment. - DDT (The main DDT component is classified as possibly carcinogenic to humans. Reproductive disorders are well documented in animal studies, and exposure is also linked to human developmental disorders) Although their manufacture and application are now largely prohibited or restricted in industrialized western countries, they can still be found in the environment, in wildlife and in humans due to their persistence. Answered by Katherina Verdier 1 year ago.
Your belief is quite frankly wrong. However, your question is quite valid. Toxins are actual things, not some nebulous evil. If toxins did build up, they would be detectable. Barring heavy metal poisoning, or your liver/kidneys stop working, this isn't a problem. "Toxins" are generally a scam to fleece money from the gullible. Edit: Alties are scientifically illiterate. Using thenoseknows as an example: "given growth hormones and antibiotics that don't disappear through cooking" Actually, heat would destroy pretty much all of those. "girls in western societies are experiencing puberty much earlier" Which has been shown to be due to a higher protein diet and better nutrition. "Genetically modified crops (GMO's) are another assault on our environment and ourselves. No one has any idea what happens when you consume produce that has Frankensteined DNA fragments. " Except we do. The same thing that happens when you eat any other food. It gets destroyed. "Although DDT was banned, there is still toxic residue in the environment." This is an actual toxin that was a major problem for apex predators due to bioaccumulation. Humans weren't affected and it hasn't been used in decades in the US anyways. "No one would deny that many fish populations have become tainted by mercury from industrial waste and that there are international advisories suggesting consumption limits" I guess a broken clock can be right twice a day. "Yet if you do some research, you'll find that the mercury additives in vaccines exceed those limits on a per dose basis." No, it doesn't. The mercury containing preservative contains ethylmercury, which is much less toxic that the more common methylmercury "Mercury does not magicallly disappear from living organisms, and it's perhaps the most well studied of all the neurotoxins." Partly true. It is well studied. That's why we know ethylmercury is cleared and methylmercury builds up in the brain and other tissues. We even know the biochemical reason for this. Ignore the cranks. They have no idea what they are talking about. Answered by Isidra Buckhalter 1 year ago.
Mercury from dental amalgam fillings is a major one that can cause crippling illness depending on the amount and susceptibilty of the individual. Lead from the solder in water supply pipes in your house. Cadmium from oil paints. PTFE from teflon frying pans. Fluoride from treated drinking water. Benzine from gasoline and motor oils. 24D from weed killer. These are just a few. There are also various and sundry food additives that are used as preservatives in commercially prepared foods that can build up in your tissues. It's estimated that there are about 60,000 different chemicals being used in the world today and a very tiny percentage have been tested for carcinogenic properties. Other major health concerns are: Commercial meat (eg. beef, chicken) are given growth hormones and antibiotics that don't disappear through cooking, etc. which means you're ingesting what they were given. It's well known that girls in western societies are experiencing puberty much earlier and that males are increasingly becoming sterile. Genetically modified crops (GMO's) are another assault on our environment and ourselves. No one has any idea what happens when you consume produce that has Frankensteined DNA fragments. Although DDT was banned, there is still toxic residue in the environment. No one would deny that many fish populations have become tainted by mercury from industrial waste and that there are international advisories suggesting consumption limits. Yet if you do some research, you'll find that the mercury additives in vaccines exceed those limits on a per dose basis. Mercury does not magicallly disappear from living organisms, and it's perhaps the most well studied of all the neurotoxins. There are different types of detox depending on what needs to be accomplished. Not everyone needs to "detox" but it's a definite consideration if you're having chronic health problems. Conventional medicine is great for emergency first aid, but it's lagging way behind natural medicine when it comes to nutrition and preventive health care. It's handling of chronic illness is still in the dark ages. Answered by Chanel Staffon 1 year ago.
Scientifically, there are no toxins that "build up" in the body. There are some fat soluble substances where, if you are exposed to them, might stick around for awhile (naptha from termites, for instance), but the body is extremely efficient at getting rid of its own waste products, unless there is some sort of an illness that impairs these functions. The detox industry is a multi-million dollar industry, same as the drug industry, or any other special interest. Don't believe everything you see advertised. Good luck! Answered by Lavenia Palino 1 year ago.
None build up. The quacks like to claim they do in order to market their various detoxes and other scams. They usually like to claim that these "toxins" have accumulated in the body due to conventional drugs, in particular vaccines. This is not true. They are always vague about these "toxins" too. You never get a clear answer about what toxins you supposedly have in your body that requires removal. They forget that toxin actually has a definition. Your body efficiently eliminates what isn't needed, basically unless your liver and kidneys have stopped functioning as they should, you don't need to worry. Even if you did have "toxins" in your body, these detoxes and cleanses have no plausible mechanism to remove them. Answered by Marilu Deboe 1 year ago.
Before we go any further, let's define "toxins". There are many substances which when either ingested into the body (like vitamin C via food and or supplements) or produced in the body naturally (examples histamine, uric acid) in non-normal amounts or in non-normal situations, can produce toxic effects. Huge doses of vitamin C, say more than 10,000 mgs per day for several months, can cause kidney pain, and stones, as the kidneys are having to work over-hard to excrete the excess. A diet too rich in wine and cheese can produce excess uric acids, which deposit in the joints causing gout. Anything that inhibits proper functions of the liver, the kidneys or the circulatory and respiratory systems means natural detoxification of the body is compromised, and thus can result in disease. There are some substances which are foreign to the body that can definitely be called toxic, such as the already mentioned above heavy metals, which deposit in fat stores, and under rapid weight loss conditions, can be released causing worse symptoms than upon their original, smaller, slower ingestion. Work related toxins such as asbestos fibres being inhaled into the lungs are carcinogenic. Even certain medicines and foods, if not used correctly, can be toxic. Especially if you have some degree of allergic reaction, and or overdose. Detoxification under acute situations, probably requires medical intervention, such as chelation drug therapy to remove heavy metal poisoning. More generally speaking, detoxification would mean big enough change in lifestyle to remove exposure to toxic substances like environmental pollutants (such as smog) personal pollutants (like cigarette smoke and alcohol) and non food, food like substances (like artificial colorings, trans-fats and preservatives). Natural therapies are great for rebuilding health, but don't stand a hope in hell if you don't remove the major drains on the energy and function of the detoxifying organs first. Even then they are best prescribed by a well trained and sane practitioner than located in the detox aisle of the health food store. Answered by Page Hark 1 year ago.
There is a thriving business in fake 'detox' scams. None have even a shred of evidence that they work and most could not possibly work. While some heavy metals can be stored by the body, they are 'locked away' in areas such as the liver. If your body can't reject them then they sure as heck won't be shifted by a cup of tea or silly diet! Answered by Tamera Krance 1 year ago.
None build up. The quacks like to claim they do in order to market their various detoxes and other scams. They usually like to claim that these "toxins" have accumulated in the body due to conventional drugs, in particular vaccines. This is not true. Answered by Rachelle Torset 1 year ago.