Bad advice from CANCERactive

I have some strong concerns about CANCERactive. I think some of the information on their website is inaccurate. Some is misleading. Some is dangerously irresponsible.

But who are CANCERactive?

In their own words,

CANCERactive is Britain´s Number 1 holistic cancer charity. (Some people call us an Integrative, or Integrated Cancer Charity).

They pride themselves on being the ‘Patient’s Champion’ and boast that they take no remuneration for the work that they do. They also point out that they

do not receive funds directly or indirectly from large corporations such as pharmaceutical companies, and so this site is truly independent with no vested interests and based on the research that is available, interpreted in a balanced way

They even claim to pride themselves on being evidence-based.

Burzynski blogs: My Master List

Last updated 17/07/14

Here is a summary of information on #Burzynski – which will hopefully be of use to those daunted by the sheer quantity of links on my Stanislaw, Streisand and Spartacus post.

UPDATE 30/04/13 Many of the links are to the 21st Floor, which is now offline. Most of these can also also be found here, by searching for “Burzynski”.

Emails regarding the Burzynski Clinic not published in The Observer

UPDATE (03/12/11) Stephen Pritchard (The Observer Readers’ editor) has emailed to say

Thank you for your email. I have examined this issue closely and have written a column on it for Sunday. Thank you for taking the trouble to write.

UPDATE (04/12/11) Stephen Pritchard’s column (published today) has upset me and many other bloggers. I intend to address the issues in a new post and new email tomorrow when I have time.
__________________________________________________

As discussed in an earlier post, last Sunday’s Observer published a moving piece written by the uncle of a four-year-old girl with an inoperable brain tumour, promoting a fundraising campaign set up to pay for treatment at the Burzynski Clinic in Texas.

I wrote an email to The Observer’s readers’ editor, describing some of the controversy surrounding the clinic, explaining my concerns about the uncritical nature of the article and suggesting they run an informative and balanced follow-up piece. I have so far had no reply.