Slashdot Mirror
'Alternative Medicine' Clinic Attempts To Silence Critics
Asmodae writes "Stanislaw Burzynski runs a clinic specializing in an alternative cancer treatment called 'antineoplaston therapy,' and charges thousands of dollars for the privilege. Unfortunately, there's no scientific support for such treatment, and skeptics all over the web are raising red flags and trying to warn potential patients away. This includes high-school blogger Rhys Morgan, who has received legal threats from Burzynski's clinic for his efforts. Phil Plait summarizes the situation thus: 'In general, it’s a little unusual, to say the least, for a team doing medical research to sue someone for criticizing them. That’s because real science thrives on criticism, since it’s only through critiques that the potential errors of a particular method can be assessed — that’s why research is supposed to be published in peer-reviewed journals as well. Suing is the antithesis of that idea. ... I’ll note that the clinic has threatened to sue multiple people, including Peter Bowditch and Andy Lewis, two other bloggers who have criticized antineoplaston therapy.'"
Maybe we should ask Miss Information about this one.
I give you, Tim Michin's "Storm"
[...]And try as hard as I like,
A small crack appears
In my diplomacy-dike.
“By definition”, I begin
“Alternative Medicine”, I continue
“Has either not been proved to work,
Or been proved not to work.
You know what they call “alternative medicine”
That’s been proved to work?
Medicine.”[...]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U
I don't care if it's "medical" or not. Are his customers (patients) happy with his work? If not, they should be the ones suing and criticizing.
--- We need more Ron Paul!
http://xkcd.com/971/
Not usually a fan, but the caption is worthwhile: "...Telling someone who trusts you that you're giving them medicine, when you know you’re not, because you want their money, isn’t just lying--it’s like an example you’d make up if you had to illustrate for a child why lying is wrong."
Go, Streisand effect!
in its unproven effectiveness. Plus it's a big red pill, red pills always work better than other colors.
Burzynski is what you get when you breed a troll and a scammer.
Nerdy news for your nerdy needs? http://www.soylentnews.org Soylent News is people!
Seriously, do the quacks not realize that suing people will only draw attention to them?
Granted, they may well want that, since the more desperate-but-stupid people that hear about them, the more people they can fleece; but when you pretend to practice something vaguely medicine-like-but-not, it also doesn't hurt to stay below the FDA's radar.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience#Identifying_pseudoscience :
"A field, practice, or body of knowledge might reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research; but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms. [...] Examples of pseudoscience concepts, proposed as scientific when they are not scientific, are creation science, intelligent design, orgone energy, N-rays, ch'i, L. Ron Hubbard's engram theory, enneagram, iridology, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, New Age psychotherapies (e.g., rebirthing therapy), reflexology, applied kinesiology, astrology, biorhythms, facilitated communication, plant perception, extrasensory perception (ESP), Velikovsky's ideas, von Däniken's ideas, Sitchen's ideas, anthropometry, post-normal science, craniometry, graphology, metoposcopy, personology, physiognomy, acupuncture, alchemy, cellular memory, Lysenkoism, naturopathy, reiki, Rolfing, therapeutic touch, ayurvedic medicine, and homeopathy. Robert T. Carroll stated in part: "Pseudoscientists claim to base their theories on empirical evidence, and they may even use some scientific methods, though often their understanding of a controlled experiment is inadequate. Many pseudoscientists relish being able to point out the consistency of their ideas with known facts or with predicted consequences, but they do not recognize that such consistency is not proof of anything. It is a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition that a good scientific theory be consistent with the facts."
There must be some Federal Bureau Against Quacks, or something.
Dr Bob, DC has turned to the dark side.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
you guys should watch his documentary before forming an opinion.
I guess to some it's all the same. When you're facing the end you'd gladly pay for hope. Even if it's the false kind.
Although, if you're actually looking for medical treatment you'd gladly pay for an attorney yourself and shut that place down.
Ask Steve Jobs how it worked out for him?
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Here's the thing - he's a high school kid - under 18. WTF? Let'em sue! And then what? He shows up in court representing himself.
Then what? Unless that clinic has a shitload of cash to burn some teenager in court, what does the kid have lose? At most the judge saying, :"Kid, shut the fuck up. And repay the plaintiffs their legal costs." Maybe. More than likely the judge will just say, "STFU".
The "Clinic's" lawyers KNOW the kid can't cough up the money and more than likely neither can his parents - who don't have to anyway.
I say fuck'em kid!
Con artists already know by centuries that there's a somewhat "attention optimum": less than this, you'll lose profit; more than this, the cops arrive.
They should learn this little piece of popular wisdom...
Nerdy news for your nerdy needs? http://www.soylentnews.org Soylent News is people!
It started with Creation Science and then evolved into Climate Science Denialism and then evolved into Paul Ryan "Economics" so why should medicine be proven to work. I'm allowed to choose facts and if I don't like the ones that are available I can get the Heritage Foundation or one of the debate team to make some up for me. Same goes here.
Call me pessimistic, but documentaries do tend to be biased.
"this idea" is hardly an important consideration for people who are running scams^w clinics for as for-profit ventures.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I don't care if it's "medical" or not. Are his customers (patients) happy with his work? If not, they should be the ones suing and criticizing.
This blatant attempt to justify pseudoscience (and a poorle reasoned one) is given a 2, why? Isn;t this site for GEEKS, shouldn't the score be given in a more numerical, logical, VERIFIABLE way? Now, to the pseudoscience defender, following your reasoning, religion should be allowed to scam believers, we have no right to criticize because believers are happy to be victim of brainwashing? What about warning other people? Second, if they make claims, at least they don't label such empty claims as 'science'. How unaceptable is to ask for this basic common sense?
http://skepticalhumanities.com/2011/11/26/stanislaw-burzynskis-public-record/
Oh crap, now I'm gonna get sued! I shoulda posted AC
Why would you watch a documentary to evaluate any claim, medical or otherwise? Let's see the peer-reviewed articles in recognized journals detailing out how the experiments were carried out and demonstrating the veracity of the claims.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
the law in the U.S. and the U.K and probably several countries as well is that it is ILLEGAL to even CLAIM that you can quotes cure cancer quotes.
one person who had some success with cancer treatment that did not involve pharmaceutical drugs mysteriously had his offices firebombed, received anonymous death threats that were not followed up by the police, and in the end was forced to move to mexico.
strangely (not really) he picked a piece of land that was specially surveyed at enormous cost for chemical toxicity levels, prior to purchase.
Medical Claims can be false and I would be the first question one's science. However; medicine is not the haunt of good science. It is ripe with all sorts of quacks who call themselves experts and have the credentials and blessing of others in the field. These always attack anyone with new or different treatments. Like the doctor a few years back who got attacked for saying he could cure stomach ulcers and reduce stomach cancer. We now know H. Pilori was the cause. He treated with antibiotics and was nearly run out of the profession. Get real. The standard of if someone is right isn't that they have no accusers. Is the guy in question right? Who Knows? But all of those he doesn't have FDA etc... The FDA still approves a deadly poison Methotrexate for treament of Cancer and for treatment of arthritis. Neither of which work and the untreated live longer. Think for a change.
I'm a cancer survivor. I'm also sympathetic, to a degree, to alternative medicines. But never for cancer! I have known a number of people who tried to treat their cancers through diet, herbs, acupuncture, and so on. Every one of them is dead. Every. Single. One. For cancer, you need the big guns, the heavy chemicals, the knives, the radiation. They leave lots and lots of collateral damage, but at least they have have a chance of keeping you alive for awhile longer.
So when I see people like Burzynski preying on frightened cancer patients and their families with their snake oil, it makes me see red.
No sig? Sigh...
you guys should watch his documentary before forming an opinion.
Do I have to pay to watch it?
Well, unless the subject is global warming, of course.
In that case, you attack critics as "heretics" and "blasphemers", errr, sorry, "deniers", and you get a Nobel Prize for saying, "The science is settled."
... appears to be engaged in one of the more repugnant types of theft and fraud that I can imagine: taking advantage of the painfully sick and dying.
And then trying to sue a kid for shedding light on their morally and ethically reprehensible activities?
I wonder if^w how often they go around kicking puppies...
Check your premises.
looks more like FDA and so on are doing dirty business to keep him down.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0ibsoqjPac
There must be some Federal Bureau Against Quacks, or something.
There is.
See Lengthy Jail Sentence for Vendor of Laetrile -- A Quack Medication to Treat Cancer Patients. They finally nailed Jason Vale, the guy behind Laetrile, the apricot-pit "cancer cure". He did over 5 years in a Federal pen as prisoner #09073-067.
Not sure if it's the same documentary, but there's also one on Netflix, (I believe the titles is just "Burzynski" but it's been a while since I watched it). The show reeks of tinfoil hat conspiracy, and is obviously biased, but still worth the watching. As someone working in pharmaceutical development (posting anon since I'm at work), I find his ideas interesting. I have some serious doubts about the mechanism whereby his antineoplastons are having an effect, as well as doubts about the consistency of the manufacturing process he's using to make them (IIRC, these are a loosely-defined complex mix of molecules, unlike typical large-molecule biologics whose composition is much more tightly controlled). Still, I would like to see some more serious research done with these compounds; and I'm still open to the possibility that these antineoplastons are actually a viable treatment option.
Scientology goes after critics for decades and they are just fine.
Seriously. Hearing about this shit makes me see red. What sort of low-life, piece of shit assholes run this clinic? Not only are they scamming people who are extremely vulnerable (some of whom could potentially be helped and/or saved by real medical intervention), they have the unmitigated audacity to try to silence critics who would out them. This is beyond unacceptable. I think we all need to stand in solidarity with Rhys Morgan and let this asshole know what we think.
On that note: Fuck you, Stanislaw Burzynski, you lying, quack, fraudulent piece of shit. I hope you end up rotting in a prison cell for what you have done.
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
I'm the cornerstone of rationality for a good portion of my friends, so I found it no surprise when one emailed me requesting I watch a documentary called "Burzynski" (http://www.burzynskimovie.com/) and decide if the guy was a quack or really on to something.
I watched the documentary before researching anything about him and was genuinely intrigued. They present science and statistics in the movie and show how the gov't took some really (in retrospect) bonehead actions to prevent him from providing his therapy.
Then I looked up actual history and figured out that the guy is a quack. No one can replicate his results and he gets angry when they don't. He claims that all the independent trials are purposely done incorrect to his specifications.
But here's my problem: Fully aside from this guy being a genuine quack, why not just test his therapy fully and completely? Follow his specs and advice to the proverbial "T". Prove him wrong beyond a reasonable doubt and put an end to it.
this is very true. but it is very funny when you see that they took a rather objective approach. when you watch it make sure you watch the part where they reflect the other side.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0ibsoqjPac
because the so called peer reviewed seem to be not done properly... and yet ppl believe those peers...
The dark music when the big evil FDA is portrayed followed by rock n roll when showing his clinic pretty much sold me on the fact that he is a quack. "I'm just a little guy fighting a corrupt system" "Big pharma companies just want to silence me and they control the FDA."
his idea, have sick people drink the urine of healthy people to gain their health promoting molecules.
--sort of good idea except he has no actual science to back it up. Just a few people who got better and are convinced he did it. (and tons more who didn't get better)
Drinking pregnant horse urine does give you hormones that stave off hot flashes. Or you can buy the pharma preparation Premarin.
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski1.html
Pretty open and shut.
Burzynski is a fraud.
I say that as a real researcher (and research director.) The amount of work this man has done is PATHETIC. Even his supposed year-long lab experiment to get his "D.Msc (which didn't exist at the time,) has the shittiest documentation ever.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Remember, nobody forced anybody to go to clinic XYZ.
And how many die even having multiple radiation and other approved operations?
I support this, as its Darwinism at its finest.
I guess the ignorance is bliss excuse also explains your Ron Paul blather.
"That’s because real science thrives on criticism, since it’s only through critiques that the potential errors of a particular method can be assessed"
For some reason this is not the attitude taken towards critics of climate science.
... why aren't the guys who bundled crap mortgages into financial instruments in jail? Or any executives on Wall Street who lied to their clients?
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Scientology goes after critics for decades and they are just fine.
They are a "religion", not medical treatment. Standards are much lower for religion.
The person responsible for these legal threats is one Marc Stephens, who is not a lawyer. There is an excellent article on Boing Boing detailing Mr. Stephens' baseless threats.
I would hardly call the corporate whoring denalists, scientists.
If it's lawyer farts like a duck, it probably quacks and stinks as well.
Hopefully there's a special place in hell reserved for these jerks.
... but then I started to have this horrible back pain, which got worse and worse. I started with the family doctor, then a specialist, X-Ray, MRI, other specialist... the conclusion was that I had a malformed vertebrae and there is not much to do about it. By then I could not stand, sit or lay for any longer time. It was recommended to start taking pain-killer or a regular basis, to avoid "remembering" the pain - even though I might not have it already. The downside to this, obviously is possible addiction to the pills.
At this point I had nothing to lose, I visited an "alternative medicine practitioner", who after a short examination suggested that I did not have any back problem, I needed some mineral supplement. Still very skeptical, but started to take it - at least it was not addictive and guaranteed no side-effects. Then my back pain was gone in less then a week. Coincidence? Maybe.
At an other time I had a sport-related injury. Visit to family doctor, X-Ray, etc. subscription medicine, with huge list of warnings of side-effects, most of them way more serious medical problems than the original injury and a promised recovery in 3-4 weeks. I decided to skip it. Instead visited the "alternative medicine practitioner" again, started to take "arnica" and my recovery took 2 days. Within a year the recommended prescription drug was pulled from the shelves, since it was causing too many heart attacks as a "side-effect".
Again,,, lucky coincidence? Maybe...
Burzynski wasn't just threatening to sue. They sent one blogger a photo of his house saying we know where you live. And they threatened the other blogger's family.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
As someone working in pharmaceutical development (posting anon since I'm at work), I find his ideas interesting. I have some serious doubts about the mechanism whereby his antineoplastons are having an effect, as well as doubts about the consistency of the manufacturing process he's using to make them (IIRC, these are a loosely-defined complex mix of molecules, unlike typical large-molecule biologics whose composition is much more tightly controlled). Still, I would like to see some more serious research done with these compounds; and I'm still open to the possibility that these antineoplastons are actually a viable treatment option.
Okay, so one of the compounds mentioned on wikipedia is this one:
http://www.chemspider.com/Chemical-Structure.50771.html
which is at least drug-like (I can't find any hits in ChEMBL; haven't tried any other open databases). Another is just phenylacetylglutamine, which is 'just' a metabolite. Do you really think there is a reasonable justification for saying this molecule is active? If the guy uses a mixture of molecules, why not purify the most active ones?
(I do realise, of course, that you are not involved in Burzynski research - just curious for your opinion :)
We had some friends bring their daughter to this guy a few years ago. The only thing this guy helped was to relieve their savings and needlessly raise their hopes to no avail. The daughter died on schedule, just like the traditional phsyicians said she would. At best, it was a sad situation, at the worst, this guy is a crook trading you hope for your life savings, and not so much as a sincere I'm sorry at the end of it all.
I'm not against looking at alternatives but lets be realistic. Your physician isn't ignoring solutions to problems just because. I would be willing to bet that 99 out of 100 times, traditional medicine will be more successful when put up against holistic medicine.
His documentary has already been watched and ripped a new one.
Had he possessed an actual cure, he'd have multiple Nobel Prizes in Medicine.
This is pure bullshit.
Piss-doctor. That's his new name.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Quackwatch is an excellent place to start looking, they even have an article on Burzynski's "antineoplastons", going on to some detail of why this is a quack.
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski1.html
Etymology of the word Privilege: Latin privilegium law affecting a specific person, special right, from privus private + leg- lex law
Check your premises.
Excellent point. They *should* be prosecuted. I imagine if there was sufficient evidence of criminality, and a narrow enough target (i.e. not "wall street execs" but specific individuals), they would be.
Then again...
Next you all will be disparaging The Burzynski Clinic's AminoCare division with its line of anti-aging products and Brain Longevity pill supplements that may possibly prevent "Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive decline." Wonderous!
I know it's a little unusual for a cancer clinic to also be in the business of selling dietary supplements, but that just goes to show you what a visionary Dr. Burzynski is! You hater are just j-e-a-l-o-u-s.
We're having Christmas with an old friend of the wife's, who works as a homeopath. I'm not letting her (the homeopath) mix the drinks.
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
If they're suing you for slandering them, sue them for slandering you by saying you're slandering them.
They'll have to prove their quackery is valid medicine in order to win both cases, and when they can't, you take away everything they own.
They punched that tar-baby all them ownselfs.
The Wisdom of Wally clearly illustrates the difference between trust and stupidity.
Seriously, why is this even a problem? Why doesn't the FDA just shut him down? He's claiming to be able to cure cancer and is instead bilking people who are dying. Wasn't the whole point of the FDA to eliminate problems like this? Where has the system broken down here exactly?
Because unlike Burzynski and his ilk, the Wall St. quacks own Washington. Plus a few political centers of other Western democracies.
I haven't read anything about this particular treatment; so I have no idea if it holds any promise whatsoever, or if it truly is just a scam. In reading everyone's replies though, I have to ask why everyone is so quick to dismiss alternative medicine altogether. Sure, I'm willing to admit there are lots of people trying to turn a quick buck by selling you sugar pills, but that doesn't mean we should immediately dismiss everything without an FDA seal stamped on it. The truth is, the FDA is under the thumb of big pharma's lobbyists. Pharmaceutical companies are only worried about making a pill that they can patent and sell; how well it works is secondary. If they find that chewing some roots will relieve a headache, they will guess which compound is responsible and synthesize it at the highest levels they can get away with before the side effects become too great. They're not worried about multiple compounds acting and counteracting in harmony. They just want something patentable. Until they have that patent, they will label those roots as shamanism. Who are you going to believe: some witchdoctor smeared with goat blood, or these smiling scientists in lab coats? Any studies into the benefits of said roots will be labeled as pseudoscience and snake oil. Meanwhile they're rushing Tuberex through clinical trials and falsifying documents for the FDA. Again, I'm not supporting Burzynski or his clinic. Rather, I'm just addressing a mindset I seem to be seeing among commenters. Remember that "science" doesn't know everything, nor does it claim to. I'm not saying you should believe things without proof, but don't dismiss them outright either. "I'm not sure" is an acceptable stance.
This is hands-down my favorite example of the Striesand Effect thus far.
Actually, official medicine in UK does use accupouncture!
"That’s because real science thrives on criticism"
But only real educated criticise. Not criticise coming form people who know nothing about medicine or your proposed treatment.
I admit I have not read the original article, but unless I am missing my guess this is just some stupid high schooler who is criticising doctors.
Ignoring that in general the medical community does not agree with this guy I imagine that any medical center would sue when confronted with ignorant bloggers copying and recopying each other and, irregardless to the effectiveness of the procedure, probably changing know facts in the process.
Criticise is part of science, criticism from your peers, not random people/high schoolers.
That is like saying that these evolutionary biologists are not being very scientific when they do not respond/sue fundamentalist Christians who badger and criticize them.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
And then, once they're cured of the fatal disease, you can still sell them all of your other drugs!
When I lived in South Africa, there was an advanced, modern hospital, the kinds you'd find in the USA not far away from where i lived. But usually people didn't go there until they'd tried the witch doctors and undergo their range of treatments, and by then it would be too late. You know, lemon juice couldn't stop HIV from becoming AIDS, and the hospital couldn't do anything by that time. I thought that was an 'African thing' ...but it's happening in my own backyard (Texas). People really are the same wherever you go, imagine that.
Meanwhile, the UK government is currently looking into reforms to their rather chilling libel laws (burden of proof is reversed from the US laws, with the defendant having to prove the truth of their statements), so this set of threats and the attention it's getting is potentially helpful.
You know what they call alternative medicine that works?
Medicine.
I'm here all week. Tip your veal, etc.
"Long time listener, first time caller."
I have a friend who is a bright guy who is constantly sending me videos and saying, "Wow, what do you think of what this guy has to say?" Every now and again I watch one. Every time, I notice that the guy (whoever it is this time) goes over some aspect of his argument in a way that sounds really convincing, but, if you closely pay attention to the actual words he uses, doesn't support the conclusion he asks you to draw from it. I am sure that this documentary is much the same.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
My girlfriend pulled up a documentary on alternative medicines in Netflix the other day and this guy was a large part of it, along with a woman who has helped tens of thousands of people cure their various ailments through nothing more than the power of positive thinking, although she charges for the books and seminars and has made a nice little fortune of course.
In defense of Burzynski, and I'll admit the documentary was very favorable to him, the majority of his patients were people who had no other option. Many of them were parents with young children who had cancer who had been told by the hospitals their children could begin chemotherapy but at best it would give them a few extra years. These were kids with no other hope and supposedly his treatment worked for a few.
Now, the video could've been 100% b.s. propaganda. If so, I'm sure Goebbels is proud. But I'd rather the Slashdot community didn't call a bunch of terminal cancer patients idiots for taking a shot on something like this when all proven science has failed them. If someone has a treatable form of cancer and opts for this instead, that is a different story.
It is on netflix now. The name of the documentary on him is called "Burzynski."
Extremely interesting and fits well within the known corruption. Especially how the FDA is allowing clinical trials and previously allowed other trials and how officials mess things up on purpose, etc. Fits right into the patterns I've seen locally (read about state/nationally.) Could be this is merely the way they present it; mixing in truth with the lies or it may just be true. This guy has been on trial multiple times and the gov lost. You'd think they could do a better job at discrediting him if it was so simple and they'd not have their hands into it if they think he is an open/shut fraud case. Burzynski could be a total prick, who knows. But its not open and shut. I would expect his legal action to come from 1) his lawyers he's had budgeted for decades need something to do, 2) his more favorable status these days is under jeopardy by such critics (especially the ones he doesn't cure.)
His cancer cure isn't 100% (none are) and it isn't a cure - he doesn't claim it is - it just performs well enough to be out there with other more expensive drugs out there. I know, my mother had cancer; the costs even with insurance were crazy PLUS they didn't tell her until afterwards the drugs that made it hell only boosted her odds of recovery by 8%!! She has some permanent damage from those also toxic drugs.
HUGE amounts of money are involved and I'm not convinced many parties have any intention of curing anything more than necessary. This guy could be well intentioned or not; he doesn't appear to have been getting rich from it. True or not, the reality is that a real cure without mega profit would be suppressed if it could be (See Obi Wan in the british film "The Man in the White Suit" for some of the issues, I remember it because its the only film to touch of them I've seen; also entertaining is how they portray a genius science guy .)
I'm highly skeptical of the corrupt US health cartel; even when approved and "legit" we end up with disasters later on, then lawsuits, then we find out Merck was suppressing data and knew it was bad, etc. Then they sell the drugs to the 3rd world until caught again... Don't forget the cheap testing they do on unknowing poor people in Africa...
We should be spending more time on Faith Healers...
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Absolutely. And in the interests of balance, everyone should also view the Texas Medical Board complaint against him. You're welcome.
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
My apologies, the url didn't parse for some reason. >>> http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/tmbvsburzynski.pdf
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
I used to cross the street at a crosswalk. But then it occurred to me that I could cross the street in the middle of the road. Sure, everyone warned me that the cars were coming by fast and that it was after a curve in the road so it may be hard for them to see pedestrians who weren't at the crosswalk. But I did it. I got to my destination much faster! Not only that, I know a guy who crossed at the crosswalk and got hit by a car anyway.
In this case Burzynski apparently doesn't even have a proper trial protocol, and no credible statistics could result. He's also been at it for quite a long time (30+ years!), much longer than it should take to do some proper testing. Hence.... quack.
Look, you don't get to reverse the burden of proof on treatments, where we should accept any claims unless they've been disproven. There are far too many wacky claims to be able to use that approach, even if it was appropriate. If the proponents of any treatment want it to be labeled as genuine rather than quackery, then carry out proper trials and produce reputable publications. Choosing not to do so suggests that the proponents themselves know that it's quackery.
If someone wants to do testing on the effects of chewing a measured amount of certain roots -- go ahead. I suggest you not smear your submitted papers in goat blood, though, and be careful about dosages if you haven't isolated the compound.
"Phil Plait summarizes the situation thus: 'In general, it’s a little unusual, to say the least, for a team doing medical research to sue someone for criticizing them."
It seems to me that there is no team doing medical research, only a group of doctors/grifters exploiting people when they are the most vulnerable. I guess being part of a good-sized magazine makes one temper their text.
..posted AC? Coincidence? I think not.
You mean like their dwindling numbers of customers and slaves? That mafia company is loosing thousands and thousands of them every month and every year, if that is "just fine", I would like to know your definition of bad is.
They are dying. Hopefully sooner than later.
Gosh I hate them.
An analysis of the clinic/company(moneywise!): http://blog.anarchic-teapot.net/2011/11/29/should-you-invest-in-burzynski-stock/ Jennifer Jones "Master List" of all things Burszynski: http://josephinejones.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/burzynski-blogs-my-master-list/ List of most blogs about Burzynski: http://josephinejones.wordpress.com/2011/11/25/stanislaw-streisand-and-spartacus/ Esowatch Wikiarticle about Burzynski, more thorough than Wikipedia: http://esowatch.com/en/index.php?title=Antineoplaston
He's cured people with incurable cancer. That's a fact - and a well documented one. And the FDA has taken unprecedented steps to shut him down. Also a fact.
You morons read a biased article like this and you form a half-assed opinion. When someone has a partial cure (ie. not 100% effective) for something that, until now, had NO cure and was 100% fatal, then there's something to it. Do the math.
Well, those are much simpler molecules than I had thought. It was some time ago that I watched the documentary, and for some reason or another I was under the impression that the molecules were larger - short polypeptide chains at least. Apparently I was wrong. These seem to just be amino acid conjugates. As far as activity goes, the best these can really hope for is to either interfere with the translation mechanisms in the cell (being substituted in for the normal amino acid) or to release their (toxic perhaps?) conjugate when/if the amino acid is converted into the normal form. Either of these would theoretically affect rapidly growing cells more quickly than senescent cells, but would otherwise affect cancerous and non cancerous cells equally. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other reason/mechanism whereby these molecules would be active. Having said that, I'm highly skeptical of any claims of activity from either molecule.
And I agree that purifying the most active molecules would be a far better route. Even better would be to synthesize them in known quantities and purities (and these are simple enough to warrant it).
This guy is for real? I though someone made this shit up for a low budget comedy on netflix....
http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Burzynski/70140534?trkid=2361637
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1632703/
Scientology has operatives in many, many places of power that helps them get away with that shit.
If his treatment had any merit whatsoever, he wouldn't need to sue those that criticize his research.
Furthermore, by being the type of person to silence critics, he's instantly become a complete pile of shit, regardless of how effective his treatment is.
It would be a made up fantasy character. Just because you are so unskilled that you have to whore yourself out to whatever morally bankrupt will have you, doesn't meant that skilled people are so handicapped. There is a lot of real science out there to work with, just becuase you can't line your own personal pockets with it does not make it any less real.
Burzynski
2010 NR 107 minutes
This true story follows a biochemist who challenged the Food and Drug Administration for his right to begin clinical trials on a new cancer treatment. In addition to recounting Burzynski's astonishing legal victories in the face of skepticism, this documentary also examines several of his patients and their success in fighting terminal cancer.
For real though I don't see how some random blogger counts as peer review.If some dumb ass off the street makes libelous claims about you or your products why not sue the hell out of them. Has nothing to do with scientific peer review process. Also since when is a treatment that is going through FDA approval process considered "Alternative". When I hear "Alternative" I think crystals and diluted water and such.
So wait, he is charging people tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars for a urine treatment? Hell, I'll piss on ya for free...
These snake-oil sales men prey on vulnerable people that are grasping at straws hoping to save their loved ones. These are the people that need to be locked up and the key tossed away.
And from the Articles, the Marc guy that sends threatening letters to 17 years olds, if he is a real person, should really be careful what he says to people. You can face charges for portraying yourself as a lawyer when you arent one. And he does try to come off sounding like one. Though woefully inadaquately. Anyone of those people they tried to threaten or intimidate could turn around and press charges on them.
'Alternative Medicine' (Clinic) Attempts To Silence Critics
Wow, now here's behavior we've NEVER seen before!
Say, is Scientology considered alternative medicine?
Because in the United States you are guilty until proven wealthy.
His drugs have been in 'trials' since the mid 90s at least, they are in perpetual trials, which he charges tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars for patients to get on. He has published no results.
The mechanism by which his antineoplastons might have an effect is irrelevant when they have not been shown to have any effect at all and after this long there is no real reason to think they might.
Nice Article.Thank you for sharing.Waiting for updating.wholesale women cheap Coach backpacks from China
There's always another side to the story...
http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2011/11/burzynski_fanatic_threatens_bloggers.php
I believe that the cure for cancer is to stop eating processed foods and eat primarily fresh fruit and vegetables, juices, and organic meat in order to have a strong immune system that can fight cancer on it's own. The body has the capability to heal itself from cancer if it is given the right environment. This includes staying away from toxic cemicals. Avoiding vaccinations is also a must. Look into it. You will find out I'm right.
Keep away from the pharmaceuticals.
Look up Argent in Florida. They got busted a couple of years before the meltdown, but once their mortgages are bundled whatchagonna do?
Who proved Burzynski a fraud? When, where and how?
:o)
If he is a proven fraud, why does the National Cancer Institute have him listed as currently having 11 different government-approved clinical cancer trials in the works? Why did government agencies patent the very same compounds, specifically for the treatment of cancer, which were then reversed when it was shown that Burzynski already owned patents on them?
Just wondering.
"That’s because real science thrives on criticism, since it’s only through critiques that the potential errors of a particular method can be assessed "
Oh, you mean like 'chemotherapy', otherwise known as 'slow death by poisoning'...
Or like so-called 'AIDS' research, which has prevented any opposing hypotheses from being tested? (You know, like the fact that 'AIDS' has never spread out of the high risk groups, even though the STD infection rate has been going up year upon year for over twenty years? Where are all the 20 year olds dying from AIDS?
That name is pure comedy gold. It's like a mixture of Sergeant Berserker and Professor Fraudski.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
You can't argue with solid evidence like that.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Storm has some good points. The main character is ignoring mystery of consciousness, to begin with, and leaps from the fact that science does have a lot of explanatory power to a religion of "scientistic" materialism assuming that whatever is not currently explained well (and may never be explained well) should be or can be ignored.
Google on work by Charles T. Tart for example: http://www.paradigm-sys.com/end-of-materialism/index.cfm
"Charles T. Tart is internationally known for his more than 50 years of research on the nature of consciousness, altered states of consciousness (ASCs) and parapsychology, and is one of the founders of the field of Transpersonal (spiritual) Psychology. His and other scientists' work convinced him that there is a real and vitally important sense in which we are spiritual beings, but the too dominant, scientistic, materialist philosophy of our times, masquerading as genuine science, dogmatically denies any possible reality to the spiritual. This hurts people, it pressures them to reject vital aspects of their being."
Or:
http://www.esalenctr.org/display/confpage.cfm?confid=9&pageid=121&pgtype=1
"According to Tart's model, the interface between the transpersonal "mind" and our brain-body's computational assessment and virtual reality construction of the physical world results in consciousness as-we-experience-it. Our consciousness is not pure, and we don't see "reality" as it is. Rather, what we experience is a semi-arbitrary construction derived from the balance between the transpersonal mind and the brain-body to produce a virtual reality that we simplistically call "reality." This virtual reality is a good simulation of the physical world, so it works well most of the time for our practical purposes, but it isn't reality per se. "
Many people loved the "Matrix" movies. Plato had the allegory of the "Cave" millennia ago which is similar. How do we know that reality and our own conscious being is not much more complex than our current limited brains can handle? It is indeed a leap of faith to say we are nothing but carbon atoms, or even just patterns of carbon atoms. It is not scientific! But many, many people make that "scientistic" leap of faith quite possibly in error because science can be so blindingly helpful sometimes in developing technology or making some predictions.
More points here on the limits of science as a *social* enterprise:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/to-james-randi-on-skepticism-about-mainstream-science.html
I give an example there about how for many people homeopathy may indeed work as a system of healing, even if only from the fact that the placebo effect is scientifically proven (it's even getting stronger) and homeopathy is a way of accessing that placebo effect power. There may be other aspects in practice as well, like most homeopaths may listen more to clients than MDs and may give good nutritional advice.
Also, unlike most usually innocuous homeopathc remedies, many drugs are put on the market after questionable studies and may be deadly. For example, consider Vioxx that may have contributed to my own father's death (when now I know better nutrition and vitamin D might have helped with his joint pain):
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/11/29/merck-pays-a-pittance-for-mass-murder/
"Q: Who killed more Americans-- al Qaeda crashing airplanes into the World Trade Center, or Merck pushing Vioxx?
A: Merck, by a factor of 18."
That disaster is one more reason we need better health sensemaking:
http://www.changemakers.com/morehealth/entries/health-sensemaking
Als
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
http://www.rexresearch.com/naessens/naessens.htm
A childhood friend of my spouse died of Reye's syndrome associated with a single use of aspirin. At least 27% of Reye's deaths are believed to be aspirin-related, based on blood tests and autopsies. Many researchers set the number even higher.
So even ignoring all the other aspirin-related deaths we're talking about thousands of people here. How many people can be proved to have died of willow bark toxicity? None, that I can find. There aren't any documented cases.
Your statement that "you basically have no chance to get poisoned" is rendered meaningless by your caveat of "modulo personal adverse drug reactions". All adverse drug reactions are personal. In particular, death is highly personal.
I predict a misquoting of Raymond Wolfinger in our future.
Many of the statements in that article are incorrect -- or at the very least slanted and misleading -- which you can verify for yourself from the National Cancer Institute's own website and other easily available sources.
First off, it must be pointed out that Burzynski's theories about why it is supposed to work has absolutely no bearing on whether it works. A great many inventors have invented things without knowing what actually makes them tick. Tesla comes to mind, for just one example.
While phenylacetic acid (PA) might have, as the article states, been found to be harmful when ingested back in 1919, there is a lot of missing information there. What were the concentrations? What were the total amounts? Etc., etc. The fact is that PA has ben around a long time and has been in use for some time in medicine as a treatment for other conditions. You can verify that, too, in just a couple of minutes on the Web. Remember back when cyclamates were found to be toxic to animals... but it took amounts that were the equivalent of eating many pounds of the stuff per day? Very, very unrealistic. And that was a lot more recent thatn 1919. There has been talk of re-approving cyclamates for use in food products.
While Burzynski claims that some of the chemical compounds he uses were first isolated from blood and urine (a claim that is really pretty irrelevant to the issue at hand), the compounds he uses are actually synthesized in his plant from precursor chemicals (source: National Cancer Institute). His actual treatments involve neither blood or urine, and those are not the sources being used.
As for their effect on cancer, the statement that they "have no effect" is just plain false. One large drug company tried to patent one of the same chemicals, and certain U.S. government agencies actually were awarded patents on the same chemicals, specifically for the purposes of fighting cancer. Those patents were reversed when it was shown that Burzynski already owned patents on those compounds.
But here is the most important issue about that: in the process of obtaining those patents, the U.S. government itself claimed that those treatments were likely effective against cancer.
Further yet, the earlier studies done by the National Cancer Institute, which found no effect, were done using dosages that were far smaller than anything that was ever shown to be effective. If you want to do a bad study, that is the way to go about it. Those studies have since been invalidated, and Burzynski is now working with the NCI on 11 clinical trials.
So... don't take slanted and misleading smear pieces at face value. Look it up yourself. You might learn something.
I completely agree that "real" homeopathy *should* be rot - there's absolutely no sensible reason why it would work, and you won't find me paying for a bottle of distilled water. HOWEVER, I remember reading about a couple independent double-blind studies done by researchers hoping to *prove* that fact, which in fact failed to do so. That is to say, despite their preconceptions they did find in fact find that the homeopathic solutions had statistically significant effect on their subjects. I'm sure it disgusted them to no end, but kudos to them for publishing their results anyway. Hopefully there will be some follow-up studies seeking to figure out *why* it works. I just wish I could find the article again.
Always remember, common sense is fundamentally based on a lifetime of bias and preconceived notions formed from a severely limited frame of reference. It's a wonderful tool 90% of the time, but if our common sense understanding of the universe were accurate politicians would have a much harder job lying their way into office, and such everyday objects as transistors couldn't operate and a computer would still fill an entire building.
* This statement is provably false if your common sense incorporates an accurate understanding of quantum mechanics, in which case I suggest that it's completely unsuited to of day-to-day life and I'm surprised you've survived long enough to read this.
Because very few people eat/drink willow bark? And those that do die from it probably are described as "natural causes" or "unknown causes", but still mostly because the ratio of people consuming willow bark vs aspirin is 1 : 100,000,000. And of course, what makes you so confident they wouldn't have died drinking the willow bark tea for THE EXACT SAME REASON?
When you get to the point of actually making up numbers just so that you can avoid doing any science, you aren't reachable by argument any more.
Your faith is too strong to be swayed by mere observable reality.
So it comes down to this: what do you believe? Here are some options:
God and the bible: it says that it's all true (Self-fulfilling). If you don't believe it you're a heretic. Never mind if it doesn't match reality.
Documentaries: they tell you their point of view and show you sensationalist arguments to convince you. They don't tell you to search for certain key words on Google, but that would be too bothersome for you anyway.
Politicians: they need your vote. They'll do their best to pass their message in a way that makes you give it, even if it means not passing the message at all.
Scientists: they want to find breakthroughs. They need money for their research. Real scientists work according to the principles of science. Others are actually pseudo-scientists.
Science: it's based on some principles which are very easy to understand: (1) state your hypothesis, (2) show your data, (3) if it can't be replicated (peer review), it's not true. Unfortunately, to be able to understand some scientific articles you may need to be a scientist yourself.
http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
So? Adverse reactions happen.
Many more people die from allergies to perfectly normal peanut butter. Ditto for poison ivy.
"So even ignoring all the other aspirin-related deaths we're talking about thousands of people here. How many people can be proved to have died of willow bark toxicity? None, that I can find. There aren't any documented cases."
How many people have proven case of death listed as "Fall from the Empire State Building while wearing swimsuit"? I wager that this number is quite close to zero. Does that mean it's safe?
Quite a lot of people die from trying 'natural' remedies. Hey, most narcotics are made from natural stuff too. Some of them would even qualify for the 'organic' label! Let's list all drug-related deaths as faults of 'natural' medicine.
OK, Storm. I give up, you win. Empirical data is meaningless, only your completely unsupported suppositions and spur-of-the-moment theories contain any objective truth. Aspirin good, willow bark bad, I get it, I submit, I give up.
"That’s because real science thrives on criticism, since it’s only through critiques that the potential errors of a particular method can be assessed — that’s why research is supposed to be published in peer-reviewed journals as well. Suing is the antithesis of that idea. ..."
Unless you are talking about AGW; because then no criticism can be allowed. /snark off
"I didn't spend six years in Evil Medical School to be called 'Mr.Evil,' thank you very much!"
"Burzynski The Movie: Cancer Is Serious Business" puts quite a different spin on things. From the IMDB plot summary: Ph.D biochemist, Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, won one of the largest legal battles against the Food & Drug Administration in U.S. history. Dr. Burzynski and his patients endured a treacherous 14-year journey in order to obtain FDA-approved clinical trials for a new cancer-fighting drug. His groundbreaking medical and legal battles have brought revolutionary cancer treatment to the public. Upon completion, his treatment will be available the world over - sending a shock wave through the cancer industry
I come here for the love