what do you think, a doctor cures some forms of Cancer but Pharma & FDA try to prevent his work?

[JLI]

Stanislaw Burzynski treats patients at a private clinic using what he terms antineoplastons, mixtures of peptides, amino acids, and other simple organic substances that are said to promote the body’s natural defenses against cancer. Although he has published several studies of his own, these are of a rather unclear design.
And it isn’t cheap either. Generally, Burzynski's patients pay a $6,000 deposit before beginning treatment. Technically, the drug itself is free because it's only used under Phase II trials, but patients pay for incidentals, including consultations, supplies and classes on how to administer the drug. This runs about $7,500-$9,000 a month — out of pocket.

In 1998, Paul Goldberg, editor of The Cancer Letter, a D.C.-based newsletter covering cancer research and drug approval, investigated Burzynski's claims up to that point. He asked three renowned and independent researchers to examine Burzynski's scientific protocols — all three said they could not make sense of the data, saying it did not resemble any commonly accepted models. The article is shown unedited here: http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRela...nski2.html It is not enough to be persecuted to be a genius. You also have to be right.

A Phase II trial in glioma conducted under the auspices of the National Cancer Institute http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/con...48c199f2aa was halted due to poor accrual, after Burzynski failed to agree with the investigators on possible expansion of the eligibility criteria. Nine patients were accrued, six of whom were able to be evaluated for response. There were no objective responses, and all six showed evidence of tumor progression after treatment durations of between 16 to 66 days. The mean time to treatment failure (progression or discontinuation due to toxicity) was 29 days. All nine patients died before the study closed, all but one death being due to tumor progression. Although the authors of the article claimed that the small sample size precluded "definitive conclusions," the results of the patients in the trial are clearly extremely disappointing.

And there are lots of reasons why the establishment really want to find a cure. Here are some of them:
1) Owners/employees (And their love ones) of pharmaceutical companies suffer from cancer too.
2) Researchers wouldn't be able to keep their mouth shut if they found a miraculous cure or even a major breakthrough.
3) Progress in cancer treatment is happening even though not as fast as we all would like to. Some cancers are even easily cured.
4) Pharmaceutical companies wouldn't lose money for finding a cure - They would increase their income considerably, because people will still get cancer.
5) Also members of governments (and their love ones) sometimes get cancer.

On the internet there are many claims of miraculous "natural" cancer cures that are being suppressed. Here some of them are listed, with links to sites explaining what is wrong with them: http://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2011/...which-one/

Edit to add:
[Didn't say I agree with it, it was a Question, ]
Nine out of ten times people are asking this sort of question, they are in reality making a statement, and agree with those who accept these quackery cancer therapies. When reviewing the advice you have given on this board: http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind...627AA9yAAF you certainly do come across as a proponent of this idea. Not as someone who is doing research.

[What you clearly stated was how many had died...] No - It was a reference to a journalistic followup on 4 patients, who in 1988 were selected by Burzynski and presented as successes (cured patents). We will never know the true number of deaths, because Burzynski is not reporting them.

[..loads of cures and things have been discovered by accident,]
As explained, this therapy has been given a fair chance at independent replication. And it failed.