This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Knowledge & Support Community

This video has nothing to do with MS or CCSVI and yet I think you will recognize a familiar theme.

https://www.burzynskimovie.com/index.ph ... cle&id=110

At least the Cancer Industry has made progress in recent years e.g. survival rates. In comparison the MS Industry hasn't made any meaningful progress.

PN

Its the reaction of the mainstream medical community that is familiar.

Yes you're right.

Yeah, but if they all turn into flesh-eating zombies, the pharmaceutical companies get to say "I told you so"! They're just looking out for the planet. I hope Will Smith stays healthy (if you don't "get" this, you need to rent the movie "I am Legend").

I can imagine. The dirty tricks played in the peer-reviewed press seem to be a common MO for those who have been labeled the "Lords of Science". However, after a few hundred years of posterity, facts have a tendency to find their way to the surface, in spite of the efforts of some few to obscure them. The peer-reviewed press was created and refined a few hundred years ago, by people who had no interest in such malarkey, and it will survive.

1eye wrote:I can imagine. The dirty tricks played in the peer-reviewed press seem to be a common MO for those who have been labeled the "Lords of Science". However, after a few hundred years of posterity, facts have a tendency to find their way to the surface, in spite of the efforts of some few to obscure them.

The peer-reviewed press was created and refined a few hundred years ago, by people who had no interest in such malarkey, and it will survive

.

I disagree with you one eye. What is a bunch of malarkey is what the internet has done to science(in some ways). While seeing a bunch of different opinions/ideas is a good thing, the internet has made it easy for "experts" to convince people they know what they are talking about while really they are spreading a bunch of, well.....malarkey.

Scorpion, I think you are confusing science with marketing. Marketing has always had the goal of convincing the public of the value of something, whether that value was real or not. The only thing that the internet has "done to science" is to provide the end user with access to unlimited intellectual resources. The end user, now as before, still has to filter out what is real versus what is marketing.

Applying the above to the film, there is no question that the film was a marketing tool, not a science dissertation. However, marketing is not reserved only for bad or deceitful products. Unless they are committing fraud on a grand (and indefensible) scale, I suspect that cancer patients everywhere would be very encouraged with the statistically significant success of the product. And as David1949 pointed out in his original post, the antagonism from the general medical community seems more than vaguely familiar to that of the response to CCSVI from the same community.

the internet has made it easy for "experts" to convince people they know what they are talking about while really they are spreading a bunch of, well.....malarkey.

Are you suggesting that what Burznski was doing was "malarkey"?

While I agree many abuse the internet in "proving" their point, I hardly think how the FDA, Texas Medical Board and others involved in this situation, displayed one ounce of professional behavior. How they tried to use their "courts" and the legal courts to try and "screw" Burznski is beyond disgusting! They failed at each and every attempt and then got caught in trying to steal his patents.

It makes you wonder how many other times they acted in a similar fashion.

Harry

jgalt2009 wrote:Scorpion, I think you are confusing science with marketing. Marketing has always had the goal of convincing the public of the value of something, whether that value was real or not. The only thing that the internet has "done to science" is to provide the end user with access to unlimited intellectual resources. The end user, now as before, still has to filter out what is real versus what is marketing.

Applying the above to the film, there is no question that the film was a marketing tool, not a science dissertation. However, marketing is not reserved only for bad or deceitful products. Unless they are committing fraud on a grand (and indefensible) scale, I suspect that cancer patients everywhere would be very encouraged with the statistically significant success of the product. And as David1949 pointed out in his original post, the antagonism from the general medical community seems more than vaguely familiar to that of the response to CCSVI from the same community.

I am curious what you consider the Direct MS site that "advertises" Embry's diet. Is it marketing or science?

scorpion wrote: I am curious what you consider the Direct MS site that "advertises" Embry's diet. Is it marketing or science?

Dr. Embry gives all of the Best Bet Diet info online for free. No books, CDs, no income. His booklets are free, downloadable pdfs. His videos on online for free. He makes his living as a geologist, and takes no money from Direct-MS.

He also has links to all of the research, which provides the science behind the nutritional information. It's a great site. (Direct-MS donated to some of the first vitamin D studies and was the first diet that recommended supplementation of vitamin D for pwMS....back when the MS specialists laughed at the notion of vit. D)
http://www.direct-ms.org/recommendations.html
cheer

Scorpion, I am not familiar with the site you reference, and I certainly meant no offense. But to answer your question in a general sense, I believe that any advertisement (almost by definition) includes marketing. It may also include science (or references to science), but the goal is to sell, not to teach.

My point is that science and marketing are not necessarily mutually exclusive. One can market good science.

Furthermore, I do not see a conflict in marketing good science. As a hard-core capitalist (note my username), I WANT people to make money by marketing good science. Greed has such ugly connotations, but I believe that greed (defined HERE as a desire to become more wealthy through MORAL means) is a great motivator in furthering science. Immoral greed is, of course, despicable.

And I promise that will be my last pseudo-political statement EVER on this website. We are all here because we are all in this together.

jgalt2009 wrote:Furthermore, I do not see a conflict in marketing good science. As a hard-core capitalist (note my username), I WANT people to make money by marketing good science. Greed has such ugly connotations, but I believe that greed (defined HERE as a desire to become more wealthy through MORAL means) is a great motivator in furthering science. Immoral greed is, of course, despicable.

And I promise that will be my last pseudo-political statement EVER on this website. We are all here because we are all in this together.

Hey jgal2009 I believe that generally speaking science(specifically medicine) does not need to be marketed but instead proven through rigorous testing AFTER which it can be said to either be "good" or "bad" science. That said I understand your point and respect what you are saying.

Cheer said:

Dr. Embry gives all of the Best Bet Diet info online for free. No books, CDs, no income. His booklets are free, downloadable pdfs. His videos on online for free. He makes his living as a geologist, and takes no money from Direct-MS.

Yeah I know he offers it free online but there is a place to click on to donate to his cause. I guess when I read the info. on his special diet I get the feeling I am reading a script from one of those infomercials you see on TV for penis enlargement. Instead of " my wife said that she was more satisfied after I used the Extenz and now she wants it five times a day!" we get "“I suppose I could be listed as one of those whose life has changed for the better thanks to Ashton Embry's research and info regarding Diet and MS.". Testimonials are usually used to convince people to buy or give money although I am not saying there is anything wrong with that strategy. Actually disregard my comment on EXTENZ for I never saw or had reason to watch one of their infomercials!

whatever. I'm not going to get into a p-ing match.
Just watch the documentary on Burzynski. It's pretty incredible.
He discovered new peptides (anti-neoplastons) in human blood and urine, found only in those without cancer. He cured incurable brain cancer in many people (over 25-28%) in peer-reviewed clinical trials....and the mainstream medical world maligns him, calls him a quack.
Sickness is a big business, getting bigger all the time.
If anyone in my family ever had to deal with cancer, we'd go see Burzynski. Similarities to Dr. Zamboni...an innovative European doctor with accented English and odd last name goes outside the standard medical establishment, heals people and is treated like a lunatic.
Thanks for posting, David.
cheer