The Burzynski legal threats: one year on

This time last year, following some spectacularly bad ‘web optimization’ work by pseudo-lawyer Marc Stephens, the Burzynski Clinic issued a press release. Marc’s misguided and heavy handed attempts to silence online criticism had resulted in the publication of over a hundred articles in six days.

The press release said that Marc’s actions were not appropriate and that he no longer had a professional relationship with the clinic. However, they maintained that UK bloggers had provided ‘inaccurate factual information’ and would be contacted by attorneys.

Since then I have been accused – usually on Twitter, by Burzynski supporters  – of making things up, of lying and of defamation. And although I generally reply that I would be happy to correct anything inaccurate or misleading on my blog, I have never been shown a single sentence in need of editing.

I have never been contacted by anyone claiming to represent the clinic.

The press release listed some statements which the Burzynski Clinic claimed were false and defamatory.

For example:

There are no scientific studies supporting antineoplaston treatment since 2006.  False – below is a list of publications and abstracts providing the results of FDA approved clinical trials since 2006 which demonstrate the treatment’s efficacy on a wide variety of brain tumors.

Have there actually been any scientific studies supporting antineoplaston treatment since 2006?

Only if you don’t know what ‘scientific’ means.

As far as I’m aware, Burzynski’s attorneys never did get round to contacting UK bloggers about this or indeed any ‘false and defamatory’ information on our blogs.

In fact, rather than threatening to sue any UK blogger who dares suggest otherwise, I’m not sure the Burzynski Clinic are actually allowed to claim efficacy for antineoplastons (including by press release). They are certainly not allowed to do so in a promotional context.

In October of this year, the FDA wrote to Dr Burzynski warning him that:

Antineoplastons are investigational new drugs that do not have marketing authorization in the
United States. An investigational new drug (IND) application was submitted to the FDA in [REDACTED]

Promotion of an investigational new drug is prohibited under FDA regulations at 21 CFR
312.7(a), which states, “A sponsor or investigator, or any person acting on behalf of a sponsor or investigator, or any person acting on behalf of a 1 sponsor or investigator, shall not represent in a promotional context that an investigational new drug is safe or effective for the purposes for which it is under investigation or otherwise promote the drug.”

Burzynski has been using these investigational ‘new’ drugs for over 35 years and in 1998 was ordered to cease and desist selling them outside of FDA supervised clinical trials. There are currently over 60 unfinished trials listed on

Since we have never seen the publication of meaningful data from any of Burzynski’s numerous trials on antineoplastons, it would be impossible for anybody to objectively and truthfully claim that efficacy had been demonstrated. There are also well known side effects.

In hindsight, this press release consisted merely of spin, bluster and empty threats. Just what we’ve come to expect from the Burzynski Clinic and its various anonymous supporters.

52 responses to “The Burzynski legal threats: one year on

  1. BurzynskiMovie is likely the filmmaker, Eric Merola.

    • I think so too though the identity isn’t explicit. It is also quite possible (probable?) that Burzynski Saves is the same person but as we know, he/she/they have evaded questions on that point.

    • Well Bob not sure what the ‘legal threat is’ since the Texas medical board have now dropped their case against Burzynski, they would hardly do that if they thought he wasn’t doing something useful.

  2. sebastianarmstrong

    Ernsty, the TMB does nto arbitrate whether something is “useful” and they did not drop their case becuase the treatemtn was legitimate, they dropped it because Dr B was not the subject fo the case, but he himself is not providing the treatment. That in no way means thaty think he is doing anythign useful, in fact it shows he himself is tryign to avoid doing anything so he avoid prosecution for his sham trials.

  3. A girl at my kids school was given a death sentence by her ‘orthodox doctors’ and money was raised to send her to Burzynski’s clinic. Some time on she has way passed the dates that she was supposed to die and the tumor is now turning into a cyst.

    If I thought you were really interested in facts rather than Barrettbull then it would be a pleasure to give you more details.

    Josephine it is no defense of your weak position to just say ‘I got it all from Quackwatch’ you are as guilty as he is of smearing a cloud of crap over scientific enquiry.

    • If you would like to give me more details, feel free. But bear in mind that Burzynski has treated thousands of patients for over 35 years and still hasn’t provided reliable evidence of safety or efficacy. Individual patient anecdotes aren’t reliable evidence that the treatment is working. Also, there are a worrying number of instances where it appears that the Burzynski clinic have led patients to believe they were getting better when in fact they were not.

  4. You should check out because the man you are quoting for your story is on the run for above all things making up stories.

    • Just to be clear, I’m not relying on Quackwatch – many more people have written about the Burzynski clinic. In any case, a lot of information is available first hand. I am careful to link to my sources where appropriate so that readers can see what I’m basing my arguments on.

      Also, the link you have posted is not a reliable source.

    • Consultant, as you have obviously done some research I’m replying to you rather than waste my time speaking to closed minds. It’s amazing how little it takes for fear to make up peoples minds, and the propaganda surrounding the cancer industry is enormous. It only takes one person who ‘appears’ to know what they’re talking about to determine the minds of others. People are so fearful of cancer that its just so much easier to put their lives in the hands of someone else to ‘fix’ their problem rather than take any responsibility for their health themselves. The problem with that is, the people who claim to be trying to fix the problem are the people who are rich because of the problem. They’re also the same people who play a large part in causing the problem in the first place. Cancer is often a result of a toxic lifestyle. Aspartame is known to cause brain tumours among many other things. Yet, do we hear doctors telling us to stop giving our kids sugar free drinks full of aspartame? No, they push it all the more, and there is now an even worse form of sweetener called neotame. Guaranteed to bring in more business. Scientists know this and yet they still continue to claim that they’re looking for a ‘cure’ for cancer, while all the time, unpatentable treatments and cures are being suppressed and made illegal.
      The medical establishment claims not to know what causes cancer. They know full well what causes it but rather than encourage prevention, they insist on fooling the public that they’re STILL looking for a cure.
      Many years ago, a man named Harry Hoxsey discovered yet another cure and the medical establishment tried to buy it from him. His terms for the sale were the agreement that if anyone couldn’t afford to have the treatment, they were to be given it free of charge. They refused and instead began a constant campaign to put him out of business. It took a long time but eventually they succeeded.
      The problem was that he was already a rich oil tycoon and so didn’t need the money. He used to often treat cancer patients free of charge. Since cancer is a big money making business, this was frowned upon and was losing alot of people alot of money.
      There is so much more to this than the average person realises. Burzynski is just one of the more recent people to be victimised by the authorities due to his treatments proving theirs useless and harmful. It’s about the money. It’s not about helping or curing people, its about squeezing every penny out of the people (whether it be directly or via taxes as in the UK) and certain people becoming rich because of it.
      Modern medicine concentrates on ridding the patient of the tumour. This is purely resolving the symptom of the problem rather than getting to the root cause of the problem. They should be concentrating on ‘why’ the tumour is there in the first place. A good immune system will fight cancer off. Rather than help patients build up a good strong immune system, by using the ‘treatments’ they do, they actually kill the immune system, which usually leads to prolonged illness (more money) and then eventually death. Both chemo AND radiation cause cancer because they destroy the body. The side effects of chemo are cancer. The whole idea is ridiculous, and even more ridiculous to see people with a compromised immune system being given toxins which will literally kill what little immune system they have left.
      Theres so much more to this corrupt business. Even as far as although the public is told that there are *new* drugs which cure cancer, often they’re just old drugs repatented under a new name. It’s about the money.
      Things like Tamoxifen, which has a ‘cure’ rate of 2-3% (remember that this is used ‘after’ the doctors have removed the tumour and rendered the patient cancer free so theoretically should have 100% cure rate) also causes cancer of the uterus. No wonder doctors will opt to remove a womans womb when diagnosed with breast cancer.
      Once you begin to do the research things become very clear. Unfortunately, you won’t get accurate statistics and data from mainstream media, often because they have conflicts of interest. For example, Rupert Murdochs son is on the board of directors of GSK.
      This shouldn’t make a difference but in the real world it does.
      Regarding quackwatch, its actually thought of as quite an honour nowadays for a doctor of alternative medicine to be named in the site, which is run by a totally corrupt person who has been sued more times than many of us have had hot dinners. According to alternative doctors, the closer their name is to the top of the list, the more damaging they are to orthodox medicine.
      We all like to think that people report the truth, but in reality, they report whatever is going to benefit them in the long run.
      This is very interesting regarding Burzynski as well. It’s not the sort of thing you’ll ever hear in mainstream reporting either, but again, they’re very selective and biased for obvious reasons.
      Dr Mercola is a very well respected doctor.

      • Michael Warren (@MrMWarren)

        It’s difficult to know how to respond to such a Gish Gallop of woo but one of your assertions requires a response. “Dr Mercola is a very well respected doctor”. He’s not a doctor and he’s not well respected.

  5. @consultant I suggest you read this on tumour associated cysts,

    A real oncologist there, telling the truth. The little girl in question is now sadly nearing the end.

    As for living past the expected lifespan, no-one, least of all genuine cancer doctors, can reliably estimate how long someone who is terminally ill has to live. Most would rather the question wasn’t asked, but as it often is, they can only give a very rough estimate, Some patients live longer, some have less time. Burzynski exploits this to use as advertising fodder. The man is a disgrace.

  6. I don’t know if this comment will be posted, usually my comments are deleted or just ignored, especially when I come up with proof that the medical system is totally corrupt to the core and totally money motivated.

    • For the record, I haven’t deleted any of Michele’s comments. I’m not in the habit of deleting critical comments.

      • Actually, for the record, I’d say at least over half a dozen comments of mine have been deleted or mysteriously ‘disappeared’. One of the urls being this one, which proved my comment on another Burzynski thread (which was ridiculed I might add) about the Rockerfeller organisation being in control of the corrupt medical system. I will repeat my previous comment that over the years the Rockerfellers have used many tactics to infiltrate and determine what is learnt at medical schools and universities. One of their classic moves is/was to offer large donations in the form of a loan or grant on the condition that they decide what is taught and they would also insist that their own members are sitting on the board of directors. This thing is so much about money and who holds the patents for drugs etc. The public are intentionally kept in the dark about all of this because the mainstream media are controlled in every aspect of what they are ‘allowed’ to report. There are often ‘conflicts of interest’ such as Rupert Murdochs son being on the board of directors at Glaxo Smith Kline. Do the research and you’ll find many many examples of this.
        Read the following example with a critical eye and ask yourselves why on earth, a large business would give ‘donations’ to train doctors worldwide if they weren’t expecting to make money on their actions. The public have been duped, and even worse than that, they defend the people who are making fools of them

        If anyone is interested enough to read the above article and look into this further, it would also be an idea to research the approximate years that homeopathy (which was widely used at the time) was taken over by allopathy (the current form of medicine). You will find it coincides perfectly.

        For anyone who again wants to ridicule what I’ve just said, all I can say is that obviously the people who designed the system have made an excellent job. BTW, for anyone who doesn’t know, there is an act of parliament called the cancer act of 1939 in which it became illegal to cure cancer using any other means than radiation/chemo. Extremely sad state of affairs because any doctor will tell you that both list cancer as side effects and once treated by the above methods, the cancer will usually return much more aggressively due to the immune system being totally trashed.

        I hope that one person somewhere will swallow their pride for just a little while and take the time to watch the following documentary. It’s very revealing and extremely educating.

      • I haven’t deleted any of your comments. Perhaps you were mistaken. Feel free to repost.

        I need hardly point out that I’m not part of the mainstream media and am free to write whatever I like, providing I don’t break any laws.

        You also seem mistaken about the Cancer Act. Here it is, should you wish to reacquaint yourself:

  7. sebastianarmstrong

    How about you actually come up with that proof, certainly your article doesn’t provide any. Dr B got off on a technicality, by saying he didn’t treat anyone, it was all his subordinates, so he cannot be held responsible for the treatments his clinic offer. Everyone has seen the Examiner article, but it is biased reporting that ignores the actual facts. Even the title is a misrepresentation, as he has presented no evidence that he is curing cancer using his treatments rather than just charging for conventional treatments and adding on some mumbo jumbo about ANP and targetted therapy afterwards to make it look like he is doing additional helpful treatments. Seriously, he has presented no evidence that the addition of these “treatments” has any effect over and above the conventional treatments that his patients have received. Presenting anecdotal evidence that “some” patients have “recovered” or shown improvement for short periods (not 5 year survival rates) gives no actual rates to demonstrate that his additional “treatments” are having any benefit. After 35 years of trials he must have some data that actually demonstrates exactly how effective (or ineffective) ANP is, so why does he keep starting new trials rather than publiah the data? It looks to an outsider like he is going to run failed trial after trial until he gets lucky with the data and then publish a single trial as proof, I can’t see why anyone with a succesful treatment would not publish and get his treatment recognised so that as many people as possible could benfit. To me only 2 options exist, either (a) he does not have the proof, becuase his trials have failed, or (b) he is deliberately witholding the proof of a cure, and condemning cancer patients to an early grave just so he can keep a monopoly on this lucrative treatment. The former is more likely, I would hate tot hink that anyone who cares about cancer, especially childhood brain tumours, could do the latter

  8. Hi again Josephine.
    This isn’t an argument and to be honest, I haven’t saved a record of the previous comments I posted, although you may recall me emailing many times to ask why they were deleted.
    That is besides the point however. No, I’m not mistaken about the cancer act, and you may recall it was I who pointed the cancer act out to you previously. Many people are unaware of it. The opening lines are as follows. I would like to add for those who are unaware, radium is what radiation was previously known as. Some people will be able to connect the dots here regarding the lending of money to the national radium trust to help them prohibit alternative cancer treatments and some people won’t. I would suggest that when our lives are in question, critical thinking is essential. This whole thing is about money.

    “Cancer Act 1939
    1939 CHAPTER 13 2 and 3 Geo 6

    An Act to make further provision for the treatment of cancer, to authorise the Minister of Health to lend money to the National Radium Trust, to prohibit certain advertisements relating to cancer, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.”

    This was actually the legislation in the UK which made it illegal to cure cancer by any other means than radiation.
    It doesn’t matter to me when others have their heads in the sand, but I find it sad when those same people are causing others to continue in ignorance. As a caring human being, I feel that its time to drop the pride, regardless of our motives, and help fellow human beings to seek the truth and healing.
    Peace be with you and all I can do is hope.

    • Either you’re getting your wires crossed or I have some very over enthusiastic spam filters. I haven’t deleted any of your comments and have no recollection of any emails from you.

      The Cancer Act doesn’t prohibit any treatment but does state that you can’t advertise cancer treatments or give advice on cancer treatments as part of an ad.

      Incidentally, Burzynski uses chemo and lots of it, in an apparently pick and mix fashion. And if antineoplastons are effective against any type of cancer then they are chemotherapy.

  9. sebastianarmstrong

    Michelle, I think you are connecting dots that have no connection. No one is preventing Dr B from running trials, personally with so many started and the lack of published results I cannot see why they are letting him continue to run “trials” which he seemingly has no intention of completing and publishing. No one is preventing him from publishing the results of his trials, his lack of evidence is self imposed, and it is this lack that prevents his treatment from being adopted, not some conspiracy by otehrs. No one can prevent him from publishing, no one can change the results of his trials, and if successful it is unlikley that his “treatments” would be prevented from incorporation into the NHS if it is demonstrated to be effective, safe and cost effective. He is th eonly one with the power to publish or not publish the data that woudl lead to the adoption of his “treatment”, and he has chosen not to publish. No conspiracy there, he must know the data, he certainly makes claims to famimlies that it is more effective, but he won’t let people see the data. How is that the fault of Rockerfella or anyone other than Dr B?

    As I said before I think 2 possibilites exist (a) the trials failed so he isn’t publishing (b) the trials succeeded by Dr B is keeping this info to himself to keep a monopoly on this money spinning treatment.

  10. May I suggest that Michelle isn’t a real person and that all his/her comments are made up? Merely a suggestion of course, but far more plausible than the accusation of comments being deleted – which is imo a fairly transparent smear tactic. Otherwise why isn’t the accusation deleted, or the subsequent comments?
    This does accord with a pattern of mendacity I think.

    • I think you could be right, but then I would say that.

    • Peter, you can suggest whatever you choose to, but that doesn’t make it so.
      You accuse me of using smear tactics? Really? I do hope that other readers of this have enough brains to actually do the research and not take your uneducated and biased word for anything.
      Were these accusations designed to put anyone off researching anything I’ve mentioned? I seriously wonder now.
      I also seriously wonder what led you to even think of the accusations, and as your friend so readily agreed with them – could it be that YOU are not a real person? Lets hope others can work that out shall we considering YOU suggested it. It’s fairly transparent you have an agenda here, although I don’t have the time or inclination to find out what or why. Why would anyone even think of that statement? Very strange and very random I’d say.
      Josephine knows full well that what I said about posts being deleted on the other Burzynski thread is true, but I can’t prove it and don’t wish to waste my time with it. It’s a pointless argument. However the truth is the truth and nothing can change that.
      It’s a shame that you can’t recognise a genuine and honest person when you see one, but that happens all the time in this world.
      I can assure you I’m real, but again, I can’t prove it.
      Someone here though, might like to see this video which I made some time ago showing that there are effective alternative treatments for cancer out there which are being suppressed and made illegal by govts. The treatment I used in this video is called black salve – NOT made with the ingredients spoken of in the propaganda website called quackwatch.
      Black salve is illegal for humans to use but can legally be used to cure horses, cats and dogs of cancer. Strangely, there is no cancer industry for animals so it really isn’t rocket science why it’s still legal to use it on them.
      This was widely used in cancer clinics before the cancer act of 1939.
      I won’t expect you to watch this video as your mind is already closed, but hopefully, someone who is genuinely interested in researching truth will.
      If anyone does watch it, please don’t take my word for anything, do the research and speak to people who have used alternative treatments.

      • I think I was being quite charitable when I suggested you were mistaken about comments and emails which you believe have been deleted. These comments and emails never existed and I think deep down, you know this.

        In an earlier comment, I mentioned that I’m free to write whatever I like, providing I remain within the law. The only instances where I have edited comments is when I have been concerned that they may be unlawful (and I made this clear at the time). In particular, I am careful to avoid publishing anything which could be construed as libel. Since I don’t intend to sue myself, you are free to say what you like about me but I would take care before making unpleasant unevidenced assertions about anyone else. I think you are skating on thin ice here.

        As I’ve said in a previous comment, the Cancer Act does not outlaw any particular treatments, but outlaws the advertising of cancer treatments and giving advice on cancer treatments as part of an ad. In order for a treatment to become accepted by the medical community, it is necessary to conduct trials that show that the treatment is safe and effective, or should I say safer and more effective than what is currently used.

        As I’ve also said in another comment, Dr Burzynski uses chemotherapy and lots of it, in an apparently pick and mix fashion. And if antineoplastons are effective against any type of cancer then they are chemotherapy.

  11. Excuse bad spelling! ‘Tis the contributor Michele (an Italian man’s name) who I accuse of making stuff up and making false accusations.

  12. So nice of you to let me know where I stand on this Josephine. Good that there is an admittance that you ‘occasionally’ delete comments too. A thinking brain will soon begin to work your comments out about now, along with your comments about me ‘skating on thin ice’.
    It would appear that there was also a sneaky threat of me being sued there as well but of course, I may be wrong about that.
    Obviously its not acceptable for anyone with a difference of opinion based on many years of research to reply to this thread.
    If I am not mistaken, I have been accused of not being real and you agreed. ……further on it’s hinted that my name is that of an ‘italian man’ ???? I still believe that was a very unusual accusation and wonder what the agenda behind this accusation and agreement with it were.

    For those who are interested in the truth, here is a full description of the antineoplastin therapy which is used at the Burzynski clinic. As the article clearly states, it is NOT the same as chemotherapy currently used in hospitals which is often causing the death of patients due to its toxicity.

    This thread doesn’t appear to be interested in facts it would seem.
    I also appear to have ruffled some feathers here and that wasn’t my intention. I truly thought that the aim here was truth. Seems I was wrong.

    • I’m sorry for any misunderstanding. To clarify, I’m not threatening to sue you. I’m just saying that if anyone makes potentially defamatory comments against anyone other than me on my blog then I may have to edit or delete them. This is because I could be held responsible for such comments. If I do ever delete or edit a comment, I am always transparent about it. When I said you were ‘skating on thin ice’ I mean that you could have been coming close to posting libellous statements on my blog about someone other than myself.

      I have written about the Burzynski Patient Group website on several occasions already. It is not a reliable site. The information about antineoplastons is misleading. In fact, antineoplastons are effectively the drug sodium phenylbutyrate and can result in severe side effects. Here are a couple of articles of relevance:

      Dr Burzynski also prescribes and sells various other chemotherapy drugs.

      If you are interested in Burzynski, I suggest you take a look at my Master List of articles. You may be particularly interested in the section headed “Cancer treatment and conspiracy theories”:

      With respect to the ‘Italian man’ comment, I can’t speak on Peter’s behalf but I think he was just pointing out that your name is a spelling variant of “Michelle” and also the Italian version of “Michael”. I don’t think he meant anything more than that.

      I hope this has helped clear things up.

  13. Josephine I think you have shown remarkable restraint against such ridiculous comments from Michele. She / He is so confused and made no sense whatsoever. Well done for keeping your ‘cool’

  14. Marc Stephens Is Insane

    I’d also recommend Michele read The OTHER Burzynski Patient Group website. Pick any patient story and read all about the near-fatal side effects of the ANP “treatments,” especially in regard to dangerous sodium levels. Hardly non-toxic. And yes, it IS chemotherapy.

    Also, Burzynski seems to lie to every single patient about the tumour turning into a cyst or breaking up when he knows very well the truth.

  15. Marc Stephens Is Insane

    It’s also ironic that Michele supports Burzynski because ANPs are “non-toxic” but then she promotes black salve as a cancer cure, one of the most dangerous and toxic of all the quack cancer cures out there. I’m surprised she doesn’t promote MMS as well. After all, it’s also “non-toxic.”

    • Perhaps she does. It wouldn’t surprise me.

      I see that, like “consultant”, she is also trying to smear Quackwatch, which I consider to be a reliable and well referenced site and which has published a very detailed takedown of ‘escharotics’ such as black salve:

      As you say, it is nasty, corrosive stuff with undeniable and unpleasant side effects, marketed alongside preposterous, false claims that it can ‘draw out’ cancer and tending to be used in place of surgery, causing more damage than the surgery would have done, paradoxically resulting in a need for plastic surgery.

      Yet another example of the harm that cancer quackery can do.

  16. Marc Stephens Is Insane

    There are several rumours about Stephen Barrett being circulated by quack supporters like Tim Bolen. None of them are true (i.e. he lost his license when in fact he retired in good standing) but they are repeated on all the quack sites. When these lies are corrected, the corrections are ignored.

    But Michele is a conspiracy theorist so of course everything is a lie except what she wants to believe.

  17. Some interesting info regarding Stephen Barratt here:

  18. I’d like to post this link to an amazing film called Cut, poison, burn. This is one of the best films I’ve seen which exposes the corrupt medical industry for what it is. If this can set one person on the path to ‘real’ research then its worth posting. I won’t expect anyone with a closed mind to watch it.

    • Yes, everyone should watch “cut, poison, burn”. It is an excellent example of framing, describing something in loaded terms in order to produce an emotional bias towards the conclusion you want people to reach. Obviously the statement that it “xposes the corrupt medical industry for what it is” is proof positive that in your case this framing worked as designed, causing you to believe a ridiculous conspiracy theory which, in the cold light of reason, no sane person would ever accept.
      People with open minds watch films like Cut, Poison, Burn, the Burzynski movie, What the Bleep and so on. These films are funny and maddening in equal measure. Very occasionally a valid point gets made in among the torrent of bullshit: even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
      People with closed minds refuse to countenance the possibility that these films might be wrong. They refuse to acknowledge the rather obvious fact that a conspiracy which must by definition include every single pharmaceutical company employee, Government regulator, doctor, medical scientist and cancer charity in the world, and which has apparently never had a single person blow the gaff, is well beyond improbable. Think about it. Doctors are usually quite egotistical and dependent on reputation – how likely is it that doctors, in on this conspiracy, would nonetheless refuse to use these marvellous cures, on the quiet, in their own practice, to boost their reputation? Even if they managed to get through ten years of debt and sleep deprivation in order to become a member of the conspiracy without at any point developing any kind of empathy for patients – which the conspiracy demands that *every single cancer doctor* has done – is it really credible that they would be more committed tot he conspiracy of suppression than to the advancement of their own reputation? *All* of them? As with every conspiracy theory, it simply makes no sense unless you ignore not only all conflicting data but also every possible interpretation other than the one you set out to believe. Conspiracists always rail about the “closed-mindedness” of others, but actually it’s rare for an informed critic of a conspiracy theory to have failed to study the theory. It is conspiracists who have closed minds: they refuse o accept anything that does not confirm their worldview. Science, on the other hand, makes almost a fetish of integrating all evidence however outlandish into a single coherent theory.
      For an excellent example of open-mindedness in action, read Ben Goldacre’s “Bad Science”. This points out bad science in the worlds of both medicine and quackery. For those of us with open minds, it is a great source.
      You do know the corollary to “always keep an open mind”, don’t you? It’s “but not so open that your brains fall out”.

      • Are you aware of someone called Harry Hoxsey? He wasn’t a doctor and never claimed to be. However, he had a very effective, fast, safe, remedy for cancer which worked. He had clinics and was curing people all of the time, many times for free. Also, if they happened to be poor, he would pay for the relatives to stay in a local hotel during the time the patient stayed at the clinic until they were ready to go home.
        He didn’t need the money as he was a very rich man already. The cancer remedy he had was passed down from his grandfather who used to use it on his horses successfully.
        Long story short, the AMA and the govt were very interested in his treatment and offered to buy it from him. He accepted on the condition that they would offer the treatment to patients free of charge if they couldn’t afford it. They refused to accept that part of the deal and from then on, tried to put him out of business. As far as I know, although he is now dead, there are clinics around where his treatments are used.. There’s much more to this story that the general public just do not know about.
        The point here is that those who make the rules at the top tried to purchase this ‘cure’ and when he refused to sell it on their terms, they suppressed it (and still have to this day)
        This thing is about money. It wouldn’t be good business to give out cancer treatments cheaply or free and many people would have to give up their lush lifestyles gained as a result of charging thousands per cancer patient.
        There is a documentary about Harry Hoxsey which I advise people to watch and research.

        Also, another one to watch is called ‘the quack who cured cancer’.

        Strange how people can’t bring themselves to understand that its all about the money?

      • @michele: Yes I am aware of Hoxsey. He did not have a cure for cancer. His claims were extensively evaluated by open minded people, and found to be bogus. It takes an open mind to give apparent quackery a fair shake, to test it honestly, to understand the claims that are made for it. It takes a disciplined mind to evaluate these things objectively, to set aside belief or disbelief. The result of the open minded and honest tests, as you must know, is that Hoxsey was wrong, just as every other lone maverick with the One True Cure turns out to be wrong. The story about the government not wanting to take it on because they would have to give it out free? Self-serving nonsense. Can you imagine how many votes there would be in curing cancer? What politician would turn that down? The only source for this story, as far as I can tell, is Hozsey and his promoters.
        You have advocated both Burzynski and Hoxsey. Their versions of the mechanism of cancer are incompatible. The can’t both be right (though of course they can both be wrong).

  19. I’m disappointed to find that you didn’t take my earlier advice to read the “Cancer treatment and conspiracy theories” section on my Burzynski Master List post (here: Had you done so, you would have realised that I have already linked to Cut, Poison, Burn.

  20. Well done, I commend you 🙂 I must have missed that.

  21. Another extremely good film which everyone should watch at the first available opportunity.

  22. MIchele, I mean this sincerely: I don’t think “educating yourself” and “having a thinking brain” means what you think it does. I’ll “educate myself” by watching your “extremely good YouTube film” and other sources, if you educate yourself by taking some basic courses in immunology, statistics, genetics, laboratory science, and cell biology.

    The human body is so incredibly complicated, it takes scientists years to work through a small piece of the puzzle. And with the tremendous advances made in the last decade, it is almost impossible to make such an advance without teams of scientists who are experts in their field–scientists who live in completely different parts of the country/world, but who consult together (hard to develop a conspiracy this way, as opposed to a “single, maverick doctor”). In this day and age, it’s too big for one man to know it all. These are teams of scientists who don’t make a dime from big Pharma or anyone else, but who make their mark through scientific discovery. Scientists who immediately grasp pitfalls and problems put out by those who are not so educated (Mike Adams, the computer scientist for just one example, or even Stan “not an oncologist or geneticist” Burzynski), which is why they come across sometimes as belittling or rude–it’s so innately obvious to them, as an entire group, how ridiculous some claims are.

    So you have to forgive that “tone” when it is suggested that they “educate and think for themselves”, or that they are getting rich off big Pharma (that one causes huge amounts of eye rolling among scientists), or when something is suggested that defies basic scientific knowledge (cancer is a yeast that is cured by baking soda??)

    i myself try to watch out for the “Dunning-Kruger” effect; that is, thinking of myself as an expert in something I may have studied about, when in actuality I am too ignorant to know I am not an expert with real training. Another phrase is “the arrogance of ignorance”. It’s not really possible to jump in and debate such complicated matters as cancer research without some scientific training, or a person just looks foolish. Rather than believe what one person says, It’s better to look at the entire body of evidence resulting from many well-designed scientific studies. That’s how science works and progresses and corrects itself: the body of evidence of many studies, that can be peer-reviewed and reproduced by independent scientists.

    That’s a big reason why there is so much complaint against Burzynski: if he published his evidence and it were real, he’d be rich and the science and medical world would rejoice. He refuses to publish, and as time goes by people get more and more skeptical. As they say, “Burzynski and his phenylbuterates is so 1970s”.

  23. Pingback: Burzynski blogs: My Master List | Josephine Jones

  24. Something else that might be worth thinking about. No, most doctors will NO LONGER be willing to use alternative treatments for the simple reason that they will lose their license if found out. As it turns out, its now actually ILLEGAL to cure cancer. Many people have been imprisoned for this ‘crime’. Research it, don’t take my word for it.

    • Feel free to cite a single example of anybody who has been jailed for provably curing cancer, rather than for claiming to do so without any credible evidence.

      The medical profession suppresses “cures” for cancer in the same way the Federal Trade Commission “suppresses” schemes which will make you a millionaire by just sending this letter to six people. There are laws, the laws are there to protect people from fraud. And it is actually incredibly difficult to shut down a quack, however egregious.

  25. Marc Stephens Is Insane

    Research it, don’t take my word for it.

    We don’t take your word for it. YOU prove it.

    I’ve never read such nonsense in all my life.

  26. Marc Stephens Is Insane

    More on Hoxsey. It never worked. Your story is BS.

  27. Marc Stephens Is Insane

    most doctors will NO LONGER be willing to use alternative treatments BECAUSE THEY DON’T WORK.

    Fixed that for you. You’re welcome.

    We’re having a more up-to-date conversation on another thread about Burzynski finally being restricted by the FDA. Maybe you should catch up.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s