We live in a world where science, technology and medicine will continue to improve.
One day we will inevitably look back. Radiation and chemotherapy will seem as barbaric
then as bloodletting is today. Thank God we have visionaries who think outside the box
of conventional treatments. This is the only way we can evolve and ultimately improve
the human species. The majority of medicines treat symptoms not cause. By eliminating the cause of disease, we eliminate the symptoms. It it currently believed, we all have cancer
cells in our system. It is not until they attach and start to multiply that we can be diagnosed with such a debilitating disease. The human body can cure itself of cancer if
given the proper ammunition to fight with.

Of course there are people who get paid to write, and suing them is the only way to stop them. I’m web marketer and personally know how it works and I can tell THERE IS people who gets paid for it, you understand it or not.

A “web marketer” who doesn’t seem to know when to break up a wall of text and has english as a third language at best?

Forgive me for saying this, but you sound roughly as credible as Marc Stephens..

Of course there are people who get paid to write,

Yes. We scientists have a special word for them. We call them journalists.

and suing them is the only way to stop them.

Right, so you don’t believe in a free press, then?

And you quite clearly don’t believe in refuting an argument with evidence and reason either. So, given this, why should we pay any attention to what you say?

Your comment is a lot of rambling so perhaps you could clarify the points you make.

I don’t think “that’s why research is supposed to be published in peer-reviewed journals as well. Suing is the antithesis of that idea”.

Why don’t you think that? Do you think lawsuits are helpful in increasing the medical knowledge of the world.

They are published AFTER doctors, not smarter than Mr Burzynksi, have concluded it works (…) and each person can decide wether their live worth the price.

I will address your parenthesis below. Are you suggesting that Mr. B is smarter than doctors in general? Is there a way to determine that? Why would this man know more about medicine that qualified experts. Secondly, how does one put a price on human life? It’s all very well saying the patient can decide if they want to pay, but it ignores that the treatment centre are setting the price. Furthermore, the patient may be suffering an be unable to clearly decide what their own life is worth. Civilised countries don’t expect a patient to pay for their own medical treatment.

(in this case it’s enough with this performing better than killer current treatments – admitted by government in antineoplaston’s patent plagiarized by US Gov)

That is a very bold claim. If you have evidence that current treatments are killing patients you could win a Noble prize or something. It would be huge. Are you actually suggesting that the patients would life longer without the current treatments? On the other hand I suspect you can’t tell the difference between a patient dying after treatment has reduced their suffering or increased their lifetime and a patient being murdered.

But in no case are published in those important scientific publications to be insulted by people not being scientist in the matter, or at least doctors.

I don’t think you understand how peer review works. The peer review process opens up published work to be criticised by anyone with relevant qualifications, so that mistakes may be spotted and the work improved. The review given is as subject to criticism as the paper itself, and non-scientists’ opinions will carry less weight. This also appears to be the second time that you disparage doctors, despite them being experts in medicine and treatment.

Reading it and knowing the discriminations have been taken place against every “cure” or drug not from the big labs is at least required before to speak.

Do you really believe that? The poing of peer review is that you can discard biased views from those in industries which stand to make or lose a large amount of money. That is apart from the fact that any big lab would be all over any “miracle” cure as it would make them lots of money, as well as for its discoverer if a fair deal is worked out.

Of course there are people who get paid to write, and suing them is the only way to stop them. I’m web marketer and personally know how it works and I can tell THERE IS people who gets paid for it, you understand it or not.

Of course there are people being paid to write, and where their money comes from can have an effect on what they publish. However, if you want to attack a published opinion based on there being money behind it, you must find the evidence of the funding and not just because they don’t agree with the fairy tale you support. Here we are dealing with a teenage, amateur blogger. Is he being paid by some big lab to discredit Mr. B? It would be an amazing scandal if it were, but it seems the evidence points to a smart young man who is being attacked for attempting to expose a sham.