Burzynski Q&A

Followers of the Burzynski saga will be aware that the release of the latest Burzynski movie has been delayed. Apparently this movie has an associated Q&A, but for some reason the maker of this movie does not want anyone to see what’s in the Q&A until the movie is officially released.

This made me think that a Q&A about Burzynski would be a useful resource, so I’ve written my own (with a little gratefully recieved help in researching links from my Twitter buddy @IamBreastCancer).

Who is Dr Burzynski?

Dr Stanislaw Burzynski is a Polish-born physician who runs a cancer treatment centre in Houston, Texas. The clinic is called the Burzynski Clinic.

Is he a qualified oncologist?

No. A bit odd for someone running a cancer centre, isn’t it?

Is it true that he’s a convicted fraudster?

Not quite. He was sued by a medical insurance company when he defrauded them. The court found that Burzynski had indeed been fraudulent. However, this was a civil case, not a criminal one, so it’s not quite correct to say he’s a convicted fraudster.

Nonetheless, he has been found by a court of law to have been fraudulent, so it’s quite a fine distinction.

What is he best known for?

Well, apart from the questionable way in which he runs his business, he is best known for his discovery of antineoplastons. He first discovered them in the 1970s 1960s, and has been treating patients with them ever since the 1970s.

What are antineoplastons?

Antineoplastons are a collection of substances naturally found in human urine (though these days, they’re made synthetically). Burzynski claims that they can cure cancer, though that claim seems questionable. We’ll come back to that later.

How does the Burzynski clinic promote their treatments?

Mainly through the medium of movies. Their main promotional effort appears to be the Burzynski Movie, first released in 2010. This movie, made by a director with a background in advertising, Eric Merola, is basically an over-long advert for the clinic. It presents a highly one-sided view, in which Burzynski is seen as some sort of hero.

A sequel to the movie was scheduled for release earlier this month, but has been inexplicably delayed.

The clinic also make heavy use of patient testimonials.

Is that the way legitimate medical practitioners promote their treatments?

No. It really isn’t. There are no legitimate medical practitioners who use movies and patient testimonials as a means of promoting their treatments. That is the stuff of quackery. Information on legitimate medical treatments is disseminated through publication of well designed clinical trials in the peer-reviewed medical literature.

So has Burzynski published his data?

No.

But there’s a great long list of publications on the Burzynski Clinic website?

Yes, it looks impressive to the uninitiated, for sure. But if you look closely, you’ll find it’s not really as impressive as it looks. Most of the publications are conference abstracts (which are far less detailed and reliable than peer-reviewed publications), preclinical studies, case reports, or review articles.

What is notably lacking from this list is data from actual clinical trials.

Has Burzynski done clinical trials of antineoplastons?

Good question. According to clinicaltrials.gov, he has registered 61 clinical trials with antineoplastons.

Great! Where can I see the results of these trials?

Ah, that’s where it gets tricky. You can’t. Although Burzynski has registered 61 trials, he hasn’t been so great at updating the records, so we don’t really know what has happened to those trials. Most of them have a status of “unknown”. Only one of them is recorded as being completed. And that study has not been published.

So does that mean Burzynski hasn’t published any clinical trial results in peer-reviewed journals at all?

Pretty much. There is one publication from 2006 in which he reports data on 18 patients cobbled together from 4 different clinical trials. 15 of those 18 patients died.

But he has never published the results of a single completed clinical trial in a peer-reviewed medical journal.

Why hasn’t he published the results of his clinical trials?

That’s a good question. We can only speculate. Maybe, despite over 3 4 decades of research, he still hasn’t manged to finish any trials, and so doesn’t have any data to publish. But there is a story told by supporters of Burzynski (and seemingly endorsed by a researcher at the clinic) that Burzynski would dearly love to publish his trials in mainstream journals, but has been prevented from doing so by a giant worldwide conspiracy. The theory goes that Burzynski is such a threat to the “Cancer Industry” that THEY need to suppress him, so they have teamed up with pretty much every medical journal in the world to make sure he can’t publish.

A giant, worldwide conspiracy? How likely is that?

Not very likely. I’d say it’s somewhat less likely than the theory that NASA faked the moon landings. For the NASA moon hoax conspiracy to be successful, only a few thousand people mostly based in one country would have to be in on it. For a worldwide conspiracy consisting of all pharmaceutical companies, all oncologists, all government agencies, and all medical journals to work, rather more organisation would be required.

To be fair, though, I think it’s at least as likely as the theory that the Duke of Edinburgh teamed up with Elvis and Lee Harvey Oswald’s accomplice to bump off Princess Diana.

Is there actually a legitimate reason why he might not have been able to publish his trials?

Possibly. Maybe his trials are of such poor quality that no reputable journal would touch them. Maybe his trials violate generally accepted ethical standards, which would also mean that no reputable journal would publish them. This is pure speculation though: there is no reliable evidence that Burzynski has even tried to publish his studies.

And in any case, it’s not terribly important. Whatever the reasons, the fact remains that there is no evidence from well-designed clinical trials that antineoplastons are effective.

But even if he genuinely couldn’t publish his trials, he could still post his results on clinicaltrials.gov, couldn’t he?

Yes, he absolutely could. You don’t need approval from any medical journal editor to do that.

So why hasn’t he posted any results on clinicaltrials.gov?

That has never been explained. It’s almost as if he has something to hide, isn’t it?

But I’ve heard that Japanese researchers have also done trials which prove that antineoplastons work?

Japanese researchers have indeed done some work with antineoplastons, but I’m afraid they are a very far cry from anything that could be claimed to be evidence for the efficacy of antineoplastons. Again, it’s mostly poorly designed, small, uncontrolled clinical trials, case reports, and animal studies. Nothing from well designed clinical trials.

But what about all his testimonials? Look at the people he’s saved! Surely people are more important than boring clinical trials?

Well, no, we really do need to look at clinical trials. Cancer is very unpredictable. Some patients with a diagnosis of imminently terminal cancer will do very well by sheer good luck. Burzynski has treated thousands of patients, and it’s really no surprise if a handful of them look like they’ve had a “miracle cure”. What we really need to know is statistics on all the patients Burzynski has treated, not on the handful of them he wants you to know about.

And even among the patients that Burzynski has used as testimonials, sadly, many of them have since died of cancer.

Hold on, if Burzynski has made such a big thing of antineoplastons, why can I find no mention of them on the clinic website?

Another excellent question. Until recently, there was a great deal of information about antineoplastons on the Burzynski Clinic website, but it’s now all vanished.

That’s strange. Why was information about antineoplastons removed from the site?

Sadly, the answer is shrouded in mystery. Perhaps it could have something to do with a warning he received from the FDA, pointing out that it’s illegal to promote unlicensed medicines.

So antineoplastons are not licensed medicines then?

No. To get a medicine licensed, you have to prove that it’s safe and effective. Burzynski has not done that with antineoplastons.

But Burzynski doesn’t only use antineoplastons, right?

Correct. He also uses conventional chemotherapy. This is a bit odd, when one of his main selling points seems to be that he uses alternative medicine and doesn’t poison you with those nasty Big Pharma drugs. Some of his supporters don’t seem to have noticed the problem here.

And what about the “approved, targeted therapies” mentioned on the clinic website?

What indeed. Burzynski’s idea of “targeted therapies” is, shall we say, not very well developed.

But Burzynski says he is a caring doctor who wants to cure cancer?

Well he would, wouldn’t he?

So really, Burzynski is just a quack, then?

Yes.

So why would anyone want to go to Burzynski?

That’s one of the saddest things about all this. The fact is that getting a diagnosis of terminal cancer is a pretty tough thing for anyone. While some people manage to accept it gracefully, others refuse to believe that they are really going to die, and will latch onto anything that offers them a hope of staying alive. If someone like Burzynski comes along and says he can cure them, then even if they are skeptical, they want so much to believe that it’s true that it’s quite likely they’ll go along with it. Sadly, the hope that Burzynski offers is just false hope.

That sounds evil. Why would anyone do such a thing?

Because there’s good money in it.

Edit 14 March, 7.30 am:

I’m grateful to Didymus in the comments below for correcting my original statement that Burzynski has been researching antineoplastons since the 1970s. It was actually since the 1960s. Corrections above: old text in strikethrough, new text in bold.

About the author

Adam Jacobs

set up Dianthus Medical in 1999. He is an experienced medical writer and statistician, has a PhD in organic chemistry from the University of Cambridge and an MSc in medical statistics from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. You can follow him on Twitter @dianthusmed

37 responses to "Burzynski Q&A"

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

  2. 1. Is he a qualified oncologist?

    a) Relevance ?

    b) He has a Ph.D in biology

    c) He has a Board Certified Medical Oncologist that works for the Clinic

    d). He has an Oncologist as one of the Authors on publications

    2. He is best known for his discovery of antineoplastons. He first discovered them in the 1970s

    a) Original research began in 1967
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/3527634
    Antineoplastons: history of the research (I)
    Drugs Exp Clin Res. 1986;12 Suppl 1:1-9

    b) Burzynski pioneered the development and use of biologically active peptides in diagnosing, preventing and treating cancer, since 1967
    (former web-site screenshots)
    http://www.circare.org/info/bri/burzynski_fdauntitled_promo_2012.pdf

    3. How does the Burzynski clinic promote their treatments?

    Mainly through the medium of movies

    This movie … presents a highly one-sided view

    a) None of the oncologists who originally diagnosed each patient presented in this film would agree to go on-camera, or submit a written statement
    1:44:44 – 1:44:52
    (www.burzynskimovie.com)

  3. Adam Jacobs Adam Jacobs

    Thank you for your correction, Didymus, I have amended the text to make it clear that Burzynski has been researching ANPs since the 1960s.

    I don’t think any of your other comments invalidate anything I’ve written above.

    BTW, you might want to do a bit more reading about Burzynski’s so-called “PhD” in biology. This might be a good place to start.

  4. Pioneered. You keep using that word but I don’t think it means what you think it means.

    I science, to pioneer something means to do early work distinct from any work done to date, on which other work is based that results in a meaningful advance.

    Einstein, for example, pioneered the modern field of atomic physics.

    Can you cite the papers showing meaningful advances in use of peptides for diagnosis and treatment of cancer, that themselves cite and acknowledge Burzynski’s work as breaking new ground?

    In other words, can you show me any credible evidence that anybody other than Burzynski and his closed circle of supporters, consider him to have pioneered this field?

    • Didymus Judas Thomas

      “Pioneered

      You keep using that word but I don’t think it means what you think it means”

      really ? Really ?? REALLY ???

      Where exactly did I:

      “keep using that word” ?

      I posted:

      “b) Burzynski pioneered … ”

      ONCE

      “I science, to pioneer something means to do early work distinct from any work done to date, on which other work is based that results in a meaningful advance

      Can you cite the papers showing meaningful advances in use of peptides for diagnosis and treatment of cancer, that themselves cite and acknowledge Burzynski’s work as breaking new ground?

      In other words, can you show me any credible evidence that anybody other than Burzynski and his closed circle of supporters, consider him to have pioneered this field?”

      “first described by Burzynski”

      1995 – Japan – A-10 and AS2-1
      Kurume Med J. 1995;42(4):241-9
      The Kurume Medical Journal
      Vol. 42 (1995) No. 4 P 241-249
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8667595
      Burzynski References: 1 – 3 and 5

      1996 – Japan – antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1
      Kurume Med J. 1996;43(2):137-47
      The Kurume Medical Journal; ISSN:0023-5679; VOL.43; NO.2; PAGE.137-147; (1996)
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8755117
      Burzynski References: 1 – 3

      7/3/2000 – Egypt – antineoplaston A-10
      Cancer Lett. 2000 Jul 3;155(1):67-70
      Cancer Letters Volume 155, Issue 1, Pages 67-70, 3 July 2000
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10814881
      Burzynski References: 3 – 6 and 29
      Japan References: 23 – 28

  5. Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan)

    @Didymus Judas Thomas says that Burzynski has a PhD in biology. Wrong. Not even Burzynski himself claims this, though he does claim to have a PhD in biochemistry – although this claim itself seems highly dubious, given that he claimed to have gained a PhD in just one year from a University that didn’t offer doctorates at the time claimed (1968), no-one can find his thesis anywhere and the only supporting evidence appears in the form of an affidavit from a former supervisor in Poland. The affidavit also appears to have been on “letter” size paper (8.5 x 11 inches), the paper size used in the USA, Canada, Mexico (!), Bolivia, Colombia, Venezuela, Philippines and Chile. Poland, on the other hand, has for many years (and certainly at the time of the “affidavit”) used the “A4″ paper size (210 x 297 mm) – part of the ISO 216 series. It seems that Burzynski may have obtained a D. MSc in 1968, but this in no way corresponds to a PhD. http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski1.html

  6. 3. How does the Burzynski clinic promote their treatments?

    Mainly through the medium of movies

    a) The clinic does NOT promote via movies
    b) Merola is NOT an employee of Burzynski
    c) Merola is NOT under contract to Burzynski
    d) Merola is NOT an Independent Contractor working for Burzynski
    e) Burzynski and Merola do NOT have an employer / employee relationship

    4. Comments re “Publication” have appeared on the blogosphere:

    The clinic is actively compiling the data from it’s completed trial and is seeking to publish it in peer review journals”

    “You want to see data published”

    “So does the clinic”
    http://www.skeptical.gb.net/blog/?p=1442

    “The clinic is busy analyzing data, seeking publishing”
    http://www.skeptical.gb.net/blog/?p=1798

    “In November Burzynski tried to submit the results of a phase II trial to The Lancet Oncology, but we’re told that the manuscript was rejected two hours after it was submitted with basically no explanation”
    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/03/14/five-things-i-learned-second-hand-from-the-recent-screening-of-burzynski-cancer-is-serious-business-part-2

    The accusation of Dr. Burzynski not publishing is a completely incorrect”

    “A cursory glance through Pubmed.com would show a listing of 46″
    http:www.ncbi.nlm.nih.govpubmed?term=Burzynski%20SR

    “Over the last 10 years, at least once or twice a year we have presented our clinical and basic research data at large international congresses attended by thousands of specialists in the area as well as news media and the general public”

    “The most important congresses were annual meetings of the U.S. Society for Neuro-Oncology, the European Association for Neuro-Oncology, the World Federation of Neuro-Oncology, and the International Symposia on Pediatric Neuro-Oncology”

    “After the congresses, the abstracts of presentations were published by the highly respected journal, Neuro-Oncology, and printed by Oxford’s University Press”

    “Additional data were also presented by a group of Japanese doctors including the recently published results on randomized, controlled clinical trials in colon cancer with liver metastases, which was presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology meeting and published in the Annals of Oncology”

    “Attached are 25 abstracts of interim data on clinical trials, basic research and some case reports that were published in Neuro-Oncology from October 2003 to September 2012″

    “These abstracts are available in libraries all over the world and through the Internet”

    “In addition, there was a Japanese presentation published in the Annals of Oncology (attached)”

    “There were five interim results articles on Phase II clinical trials with the last one published in 2006, and three review articles”

    “There is also a book chapter on both basic and clinical research on Antineoplastons published in 2006, one recent article on basic research published in June 2012, and two articles on targeted therapy, published in 2011″

    “Attached is a non-exhaustive list of the articles that were spoken of”

    “Highly respected peer-reviewed journals are unlikely to accept interim results on clinical trials”

    “We tried to submit such data, but were rejected”

    “This is one of the reasons why we did not publish additional articles on clinical trials since 2006, because we decided to wait for the completion of the clinical trials which occurred just a few months ago”

    “Since July 2012, we have prepared numerous manuscripts which describe the results of clinical trials, and we continue this process at present”

    “These manuscripts are at various stages of peer review and submission to medical journals, and it is beyond our control when they will be published”
    http://www.thetwentyfirstfloor.com/?p=8001

    5. The Declaration of Helsinki (30.) addresses the publishing of human clinical trial data but does NOT indicate that the FINAL publication can wait until ALL Phase 2 trials are completed on a particular drug or drugs:
    http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3
    PDF:
    http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/17c.pdf
    PDF:
    http://www.who.int/bulletin/archives/79(4)373.pdf
    PDF – History:
    http://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/helsinki.pdf

    6. National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH)

    Cancer Clinical Trials

    15. “The results of clinical trials are OFTEN published in peer-reviewed scientific journals”

    ” … whether or NOT the results are published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal … ”
    http://m.cancer.gov/topics/factsheets/clinical-trials

    7. Randomized Phase II Study of Hepatic Arterial Infusion with or without Antineoplastons as Adjuvant Therapy after Hepatectomy for liver Metastases from Colorectal Cancer

    Annals of Oncology 2010;21:viii221
    http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/8774.pdf

    8. So, you do not like the stationary and seal on it:
    http://burzynskimovie.com/images/stories/transcript/Documents/PolandDrBAffidavit.pdf

    and the author, Professor Zdzislaw Kleinrok
    http://www.if-pan.krakow.pl/pjp/pdf/2002/6_553.pdf

    and that the document states that Burzynski received a ph.d in biochemistry, and anyone can do the math like I did and research how long it takes to get an M.D. / Ph.D, and it took him from 1961 to 10/16/1968. which fits into the generally accepted number of years to obtain a PhD., since there is nothing in the record to indicate he was or was not taking courses related to biochemistry, prior to his 2/18/1967 to 10/16/1968 studies in biochemistry

    9. 1968 – Burzynski. S. – Investigations on amino acids and peptides in blood serum of healthy people and patients with chronic renal insufficiency – 1968; Lublin. Poland: 274 pp (doctoral dissertation)

    10. If you want to see how some Burzynski critics act, you can go to:
    https://www.facebook.com/questions/488444654552853/?refid=17

    where Colorado Public Television – PBS (CPT12) had a FaceBook page prior to Part II coming out, and see the adolescent-like name-calling some engaged in while I was pointing out their “misinformation, “disinformation,” and “misdirection” :-)

      • Didymus Judas Thomas

        A. You posted re the Movies
        I pointed out that the Clinic didn’t make the Movies (3.)
        Merola made the Movies
        Merola is not the Clinic
        B. You posted re Publication
        I posted quotes from Burzynski from blogs on the Internet re Publishing (4.)
        C. You posted:
        “Is there actually a legitimate reason why he might not have been able to publish his trials”
        I posted that the Declaration of Helsinki doesn’t require him to publish at a specific time (5.)
        D. You posted re journals
        I posted that the NCI acknowledges publication of clinical trials in non-peer-reviewed publications (6.)
        E. You posted re Japan publications
        I posted the Phase II Randomized Japan study (7.)
        F. You posted re Ph.D.
        I replied (8.)
        G. Paul Morgan posted “no-one can find his thesis anywhere”
        I provided cite for his doctoral dissertation (9.)
        http://www.circare.org/info/bri/burzynski_fdauntitled_promo_2012.pdf
        H. You posted about a “Conspiracy”
        i posted about Critics resorting to:
        “trolls,” “spammers,” “disingenuous,” “dishonest,” “profoundly dishonest,” “sheer stubborn stupid,” “stupid,” “spambot,” “fools,” “shills, “conman” (10.)
        11. “have a status of “unknown””
        What is on the NCI site differs from what you have:
        61 TOTAL
        1 – Not Yet Recruiting (Open)(Phase 3)
        1 – Closed
        2 – Terminated (Withdrawn due to slow enrollment)
        7 – Withdrawn (This study has been withdrawn prior to enrollment)
        10 – Recruiting (Open)
        11 – Open (1 Not Yet Recruiting / 10 Recruiting)
        40 – Active, not recruiting (Closed)
        http://cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/search/results?protocolsearchid=11475951

        http://cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/search/results?protocolsearchid=11476036

        12. “Hold on, if Burzynski has made such a big thing of antineoplastons, why can I find no mention of them on the clinic website?”
        They are listed on his web-site Scientific Publications page:
        http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/scientific-publications.html

        • Adam Jacobs Adam Jacobs

          A: I didn’t say the clinic made the movies. Just that they use them in their marketing.

          B: Not really interested in what Burzynski’s PR people say about publications. More interested in seeing the actual publications.

          C: Whatever the Declaration of Helsinki says, if he hasn’t published a trial that completed in 2005, then he’s taking too long. Are you seriously claiming it takes more than 8 years to write up a trial?

          D: I don’t think I mentioned the NCI, did I?

          E: You posted a conference abstract of the Japanese randomised study. Where is the peer-reviewed publication?

          F: You can reply all you like. Doesn’t mean Burzynski has a PhD. Did you read the link I posted?

          G: And how do we verify that there is an actual PhD thesis at the end of that citation? Because Burzynski says so? Sorry, but I’m not going to take the word of a proven fraudster.

          H: Sorry, you’re making no sense here.

          11: Interesting numbering scheme. Most people would follow a list from A-H with “I”, but I’ll go with “11″ if you like. Anyway, not sure why you see an inconsistency? Your list also seems to say there’s only one completed trial.

          12. Maybe, but they were previously listed in many other places. Perhaps you could explain why they’ve disappeared from those places?

          • Didymus Judas Thomas

            B: “Not really interested in what Burzynski’s PR people say about publications. More interested in seeing the actual publications”

            The comments I posted stated the status of the process

            Any further inquiries should be addressed to Dolcefino

            C: “Are you seriously claiming it takes more than 8 years to write up a trial?”

            I’m claiming what I’ve always claimed

            He had the right to wait until ALL Phase II clinical trials were completed re A10 and AS2-1 before submitting the data for publishing

            D: “I don’t think I mentioned the NCI, did I?”

            Just pointing out your:

            “Most of the publications are conference abstracts (which are far less detailed and reliable than peer-reviewed publications”

            may be irrelevant per the NCI

            E: “You posted a conference abstract of the Japanese randomised study. Where is the peer-reviewed publication?”

            Here’s your contact:
            Hideaki Tsuda
            h-tsuda@mx2.tiki.ne.jp

            F: “You can reply all you like. Doesn’t mean Burzynski has a PhD. Did you read the link I posted?”

            Your link is irrelevant to me

            The FDA and NCI recognize him as such, and unlike you, they’ve been to his Clinic

            G: “And how do we verify that there is an actual PhD thesis at the end of that citation? Because Burzynski says so? Sorry, but I’m not going to take the word of a proven fraudster”

            Make up your mind whether he is a “fraudster” or not

            Ask Dolcefino for a copy when you contact him re the status if publishing

            H: “Sorry, you’re making no sense here”

            You can see how critics start “piling on” to anyone questioning their “infallibility,” and “conspiring” to provide “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “misdirection,” and you can find that on various blogs and twitter #Burzynski

            11: “Interesting numbering scheme. Most people would follow a list from A-H with “I”, but I’ll go with “11″ if you like. Anyway, not sure why you see an inconsistency? Your list also seems to say there’s only one completed trial”

            Yes, this is “11.” because above I used 1. – 10.

            You posted:

            “have a status of “unknown”

            None of them are “Unknown” on the National Cancer Institute site

            12. “Maybe, but they were previously listed in many other places. Perhaps you could explain why they’ve disappeared from those places?”

            You already know the answer as you posted in the original Article

          • Adam Jacobs Adam Jacobs

            B: No, the comments you posted stated what Burzynski’s PR team say about the status. That’s not the same thing as stating the status. See also point G.

            G: I think I’ve been pretty clear about this: Burzynski is a proven fraudster. If you read the original blogpost (the one at the top of the page, which I suspect you only glanced at in passing, judging from some of your comments), you will see I provide a link to the court judgement in which Burzynski is found to be fraudulent.

            So just to be clear: I have absolutely made up my mind. Burzynski is a fraudster.

            12: No, I don’t know why the antineoplastons disappeared from the site. All I posted was the fact that they have disappeared, and that the reason for this is unknown. I suggested one possible reason, but that reason is speculative. If you have inside information on the definitive reason why information about antineoplastons is gone, please do share.

            As for your other points, I feel you’re just going over old ground and there’s no point in my replying further. If you really want to know the answer to those questions, read the original post and my previous comments.

    • You say: a) The clinic does NOT promote via movies

      This is disingenuous. The movies exist, they promote the clinic, they appear to be a major plank in its promotion, the clinic does nothing to distance itself from the movies despite the obvious faults.

      You say: b) Merola is NOT an employee of Burzynski c) Merola is NOT under contract to Burzynski d) Merola is NOT an Independent Contractor working for Burzynski e) Burzynski and Merola do NOT have an employer / employee relationship

      Irrelevant (and actually only one point). He is an advertising art director who has made movies promting the clinic, with the clinic’s obvious full co-operation including access to patients.

      You say: The accusation of Dr. Burzynski not publishing is a completely incorrect

      That is a straw man. The extent of Burzynski’s publishing is specifically addressed in the sources you quote. The point is that he has registered 61 trials, completed only one (in 2005) and published none.

      You name one journal as having rejected an attempted publication. As the BBC says, “other publications may be available” – this includes PLOS. Rejection is plausible, badly written papers get rejected all the time, but you have failed to establish even the fact of rejection with any verifiable evidence, and haven’t even pretended to prove the assertion that rejection is due to the “evil cancer industry” as per the mendacious conspiracist argument in the movies.

      A friend of mine is a research scientist. He works in electrochemistry and biosensors, some of his work is indexed in PubMed. Here’s a link: http://is.gd/spjhigson – it shows papers in high impact journals, and many of these papers are cited in turn by others, again in high impact journals.

      Who is citing Burzynski’s work and building on it? Where is the evidence that more than a tiny handful of people consider his work to be of any scientific merit?

      You say: 5. The Declaration of Helsinki (30.) addresses the publishing of human clinical trial data but does NOT indicate that the FINAL publication can wait until ALL Phase 2 trials are completed on a particular drug or drugs:

      Why do you consider this relevant? From the Helsinki declaration http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/:

      “30. Authors, editors and publishers all have ethical obligations with regard to the publication of the results of research. Authors have a duty to make publicly available the results of their research on human subjects and are accountable for the completeness and accuracy of their reports. They should adhere to accepted guidelines for ethical reporting. Negative and inconclusive as well as positive results should be published or otherwise made publicly available. Sources of funding, institutional affiliations and conflicts of interest should be declared in the publication. Reports of research not in accordance with the principles of this Declaration should not be accepted for publication.”

      Does this not strike you as specifically relevant not only to the failure to complete the trials, but also to the claimed reasons for not publishing? Given the documented issues with the IRB at the Burzynski clinic, it is not beyond the bounds of probability that journals might refuse to accept submissions on ethical grounds, but you have not provided any evidence either for or against this.

      The entirety of Section C also seems directly relevant.

      You say: ” … whether or NOT the results are published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal … ”

      This is obfuscation. While publication in a peer reviewed journal may not be an absolute requirement it is certainly the norm, and nobody has produced any other example of someone whose publication rate over such a long time and so many trials is so low. Feel free to do so.

      You say: 8. So, you do not like the stationary and seal on it (blah)

      Can you show any example of a medical researcher with a legitimate claim to making groundbreaking discoveries, where there is even debate as to whether they have a PhD, a D.MSc or whatever? I cannot think of another example where there has been any need to trust a researcher’s own production of purported affidavits to verify their bona fides. Feel free to provide one.

      You say: 9. 1968 – Burzynski. S. – Investigations on amino acids and peptides in blood serum of healthy people and patients with chronic renal insufficiency – 1968; Lublin. Poland: 274 pp (doctoral dissertation)

      And the minor correction has been made. Most of us would agree that having investigated for over four decades rather than over three (the one being a subset of the other) is (a) not really significant and (b) in any case a point against, given the paucity of outcomes.

      You say: 10. If you want to see how some Burzynski critics act, you can go to:
      https://www.facebook.com/questions/488444654552853/?refid=17
      where Colorado Public Television – PBS (CPT12) had a FaceBook page prior to Part II coming out, and see the adolescent-like name-calling some engaged in while I was pointing out their “misinformation, “disinformation,” and “misdirection”

      You should try not doing those things then.

      Let’s be absolutely clear: you are focusing on purported inaccuracies of phrasing in order to obscure the core fact that Burzynski has, after several decades and over 60 registered clinical trials, failed to publish any credible evidence that ANPs are safe and effective.

      If he had published such evidence, we would not even be having this conversation.

      No legitimate therapy is marketed in this way, as far as I can tell. Feel free to name one. I can name several illegitimate therapies that are marketed in a very similar way, including Hoxsey and Gerson, both of which are demonstrably fraudulent. No legitimate therapy is marked by its proponents slanging off critics in dubious movies, as far as I can tell – feel free to cite one.

      Why has Burzynski chosen to use the methods of frauds and charlatans rather than the orthodox route of publishing his trials and engaging in normal scientific debate? He appears to have made this choice in the 1990s when he had a chance to collaborate with a team from NIH who appeared quite interested in replicating his work. He failed to provide sufficient data. What he did provide was inaccurate. Why did he not remedy that at the time?

      • Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan)

        Presumably if the Lancet had received a submission of a paper there would firstly be an acknowledgement of receipt email. Perhaps Burzynski could post this somewhere for all to see. Secondly, if Burzynski has submitted a paper and it has been rejected, there would be an email of rejection. Again, Burzynski could easily post that rejection email. My guess – those emails don’t exist. A full rejection email will contain comments regarding reasons for rejection (essentially a mini critical appraisal). I speak as a peer reviewer for a major journal in my field with an impact factor of > 6.

        • Didymus Judas Thomas

          “Presumably if the Lancet had received a submission of a paper there would firstly be an acknowledgement of receipt email

          Perhaps Burzynski could post this somewhere for all to see”

          Perhaps you could contact the individual who posted this on their blog and request they contact Dolcefino, or contact him directly

          “Secondly, if Burzynski has submitted a paper and it has been rejected, there would be an email of rejection

          Again, Burzynski could easily post that rejection email”

          See above suggestion

          “My guess – those emails don’t exist

          A full rejection email will contain comments regarding reasons for rejection (essentially a mini critical appraisal

          I speak as a peer reviewer for a major journal in my field with an impact factor of > 6″

          Then you should have no problem with the above suggestion

      • Didymus Judas Thomas

        “You say: a) The clinic does NOT promote via movies”

        The Clinic did NOT create the movies

        Merola did

        Are you indicating the Clinic is promoting Part II ?

        Where ?

        This is disingenuous if you can NOT find the Clinic promoting Part II

        “The movies exist, they promote the clinic, they appear to be a major plank in its promotion, the clinic does nothing to distance itself from the movies despite the obvious faults”

        The only “obvious faults” are your inability to provide any citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support your claim

        “You say: b) Merola is NOT an employee of Burzynski c) Merola is NOT under contract to Burzynski d) Merola is NOT an Independent Contractor working for Burzynski e) Burzynski and Merola do NOT have an employer / employee relationship
        Irrelevant (and actually only one point)”

        “He is an advertising art director who has made movies promting the clinic, with the clinic’s obvious full co-operation including access to patients”

        So ?

        If you viewed this you would know he had to work to get Burzynski to accept him:
        http://www.skeptical.gb.net/blog/?p=2401

        “You say: The accusation of Dr. Burzynski not publishing is a completely incorrect”

        No, if you had accessed the link I provided you would have seen that that statement is from the Clinic, NOT me

        “That is a straw man”

        The only “straw man” I am aware of is the one in the “Wizard of Oz,” who sang:

        “If I only had a brain”

        and you are going to put me in a position of wondering if that applies to you as well, if you continue to post statements that make it appear you are NOT reading supplied information

        “The extent of Burzynski’s publishing is specifically addressed in the sources you quote

        The point is that he has registered 61 trials, completed only one (in 2005) and published none

        You name one journal as having rejected an attempted publication”

        I posted a quote from a blog and supplied a link to the blog

        “As the BBC says, “other publications may be available” – this includes PLOS

        Rejection is plausible, badly written papers get rejected all the time, but you have failed to establish even the fact of rejection with any verifiable evidence, and haven’t even pretended to prove the assertion that rejection is due to the “evil cancer industry” as per the mendacious conspiracist argument in the movies”

        Ain’t my job

        “A friend of mine is a research scientist

        He works in electrochemistry and biosensors, some of his work is indexed in PubMed

        Here’s a link: – it shows papers in high impact journals, and many of these papers are cited in turn by others, again in high impact journals

        Who is citing Burzynski’s work and building on it?”

        See my blog:
        http://www.stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com

        “Where is the evidence that more than a tiny handful of people consider his work to be of any scientific merit?”

        See above link

        “You say: 5. The Declaration of Helsinki (30.) addresses the publishing of human clinical trial data but does NOT indicate that the FINAL publication can wait until ALL Phase 2 trials are completed on a particular drug or drugs:”

        Should have been:

        “does NOT indicate that the FINAL publication can NOT wait until ALL Phase 2 trials are completed”

        “Given the documented issues with the IRB at the Burzynski clinic, it is not beyond the bounds of probability that journals might refuse to accept submissions on ethical grounds, but you have not provided any evidence either for or against this”

        NOT my job

        Contact PR, Dolcefino

        “You say: ” … whether or NOT the results are published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal … ”

        This is obfuscation”

        NO

        THAT is “FACT”

        “While publication in a peer reviewed journal may not be an absolute requirement it is certainly the norm, and nobody has produced any other example of someone whose publication rate over such a long time and so many trials is so low

        Feel free to do so”

        Irrelevant

        Declaration of Helsinki and NCI do NOT give any credence to “Impact Factors”

        “You say: 8. So, you do not like the stationary and seal on it (blah)

        Can you show any example of a medical researcher with a legitimate claim to making groundbreaking discoveries, where there is even debate as to whether they have a PhD, a D.MSc or whatever?

        I cannot think of another example where there has been any need to trust a researcher’s own production of purported affidavits to verify their bona fides

        Feel free to provide one”

        The Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institutes identifies him as such:
        http://burzynskimovie.com/images/stories/transcript/Documents/BurzynskiTriesToExposeNCI.pdf

        Do you REALLY want me to go into the questionable history of Saul Green ?

        Read this:
        http://www.encognitive.com/node/2449

        (and that is just part of the story – the Green info is slightly before the 1/2-way point of the Article)

        “You say: 10. If you want to see how some Burzynski critics act, you can go to:
        where Colorado Public Television – PBS (CPT12) had a FaceBook page prior to Part II coming out, and see the adolescent-like name-calling some engaged in while I was pointing out their “misinformation, “disinformation,” and “misdirection”
        You should try not doing those things then”

        I am an American

        I will do what I want to do and I won’t tell other people what to do or think

        “Let’s be absolutely clear:

        you are focusing on purported inaccuracies of phrasing in order to obscure the core fact that Burzynski has, after several decades and over 60 registered clinical trials, failed to publish any credible evidence that ANPs are safe and effective”

        I am focusing on “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “misdirection” that individuals post and I am going to call them out on it

        “If he had published such evidence, we would not even be having this conversation”

        He published preliminary reports whether you liked it or not:

        2003
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12718563
        recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma
        Phase 2
        phase II
        antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1

        6 months median duration of treatment

        of all 12 patients
        2 years / 33.3% – Survival
        2 / 17% – alive and tumour free for over 5 years since initial diagnosis

        from the start of treatment
        5 years – 1 alive for more than
        4 years – 1 alive for more than

        Only mild and moderate toxicities were observed, which included

        3 cases of skin allergy

        2 cases of:
        anaemia
        fever
        hypernatraemuia

        single cases of:
        agranulocytosis
        hypoglycaemia
        numbness
        tiredness
        myalgia
        vomiting

        2003
        Protocol – recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma
        12 – Patients Accrued
        10 – Evaluable Patients
        2 / 20% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
        3 / 30% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
        3 / 30% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
        2 / 20% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease

        2004
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15563234
        incurable recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma
        Phase 2
        Phase II
        antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 (ANP)
        9 – patients’ median age

        6 patients were diagnosed with pilocytic astrocytoma
        4 with low-grade astrocytoma
        1 with astrocytoma grade 2

        1 case of visual pathway glioma, a biopsy was not performed due to a dangerous location

        16 months – The average duration of intravenous ANP therapy
        19 months – The average duration of oral ANP

        1 patient was non-evaluable due to only 4 weeks of ANP and lack of follow-up scans

        1 patient who had stable disease discontinued ANP against medical advice and died 4.5 years later

        10 patients are alive and well from 2 to >14 years post-diagnosis

        Only 1 case of serious toxicity of reversible tinnitus, of 1 day’s duration, was described

        2004
        Protocol – incurable recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma
        12 – Patients Accrued
        – Evaluable Patients
        33% – % of Patients Showing Complete Response
        25% – % of Patients Showing Partial Response
        33% – % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
        0 / 0% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease

        2005
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15911929

        13 children with
        recurrent disease or
        high risk

        treated in phase II studies with antineoplastons (ANP)

        median age of patients
        5 years, 7 months (range, 1-11)

        8 – Medulloblastoma
        3 – pineoblastoma
        2 – other PNET

        Previous treatments included surgery in 12 patients
        1 – had biopsy only, suboccipital craniotomy
        6 – chemotherapy
        6 – radiation

        6 – had not received prior chemotherapy or radiation

        treatment consisted of intravenous infusions of A10 and AS2-1

        administered for an average of 20 months

        23% – Complete response
        8% – partial response
        31% – stable disease
        38% – progressive disease

        6 patients (46%) survived more than 5 years

        5 were not treated earlier with radiation therapy or chemotherapy

        serious side effects included
        single occurrences of fever
        granulocytopenia
        anemia

        The percentage of patients’ response is lower than for standard treatment of favorable PNET, but long-term survival in poor-risk cases and reduced toxicity makes ANP promising for very young children, patients at high risk of complication of standard therapy, and patients with recurrent tumors

        2006
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16484713

        Brainstem glioma carries the worst prognosis of all malignancies of the brain

        Most patients with brainstem glioma fail standard radiation therapy and chemotherapy and do not survive longer than 2 years

        Treatment is even more challenging when an inoperable tumor is of high-grade pathology (HBSG)

        patients with HBSG treated with antineoplastons in 4 phase 2 trials

        18 – evaluable
        4 – glioblastomas
        14 – anaplastic HBSG

        14 – diffuse intrinsic tumors
        12 – recurrence
        6 – did not have radiation therapy or chemotherapy

        Antineoplastons, A10 (A10I) and AS2-1 injections

        5 months median duration

        Responses were assessed by gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography

        overall survival at 2 and 5 years
        39%
        22%
        respectively

        17+ years maximum survival for a patient with anaplastic astrocytoma

        5+ years for a patient with glioblastoma

        39% – Progression-free survival at 6 months

        11% – Complete response
        11% – partial response
        39% – stable disease
        39% – progressive disease

        Antineoplastons were tolerated very well
        1 case of grade 4 toxicity (reversible anemia)

        more than a 5-year survival in recurrent diffuse intrinsic glioblastomas and anaplastic astrocytomas of the brainstem in a small group of patients

        “No legitimate therapy is marketed in this way, as far as I can tell

        Feel free to name one”

        Irrelevant

        “Why has Burzynski chosen to use the methods of frauds and charlatans rather than the orthodox route of publishing his trials and engaging in normal scientific debate?”

        I have found that it is mostly critics who do NOT engage in normal scientific debate

        “He appears to have made this choice in the 1990s when he had a chance to collaborate with a team from NIH who appeared quite interested in replicating his work

        He failed to provide sufficient data

        What he did provide was inaccurate

        Why did he not remedy that at the time?”

        I would like to respond if I knew exactly which 1990s event you meant

        If you mean THIS one, I know who was responsible for messing that up, and it was NOT Burzynski:
        http://burzynskimovie.com/images/stories/transcript/Documents/BurzynskiTriesToExposeNCI.pdf

        “Why has Burzynski chosen to use the methods of frauds and charlatans rather than the orthodox route of publishing his trials and engaging in normal scientific debate?”

        Why did the NCI and others engage in the above ?

        • I started reading your rambling reply but given that the first point is merely restating your original assertion, without any acknowledgement of my reasons why your original assertion is invalid, I can’t be bothered to read any further.

          If you’re not going to do people the basic courtesy of engaging the points they make, and instead are going to rely on endlessly repeating your strawmen, obfuscation, distractions and other fallacious arguments, then I don’t see why anybody should do you the courtesy of reading your walls of text.

          • Didymus Judas Thomas

            I started reading your rambling reply but given that the first point is that you would NOT “Man Up” and address your:

            “Pioneered

            You keep using that word but I don’t think it means what you think it means”

            really ? Really ?? REALLY ???

            Where exactly did I:

            “keep using that word” ?

            I posted:

            “b) Burzynski pioneered … ”

            ONCE

            without any acknowledgement of my reasons why your original assertion is invalid, I can’t be bothered to read any further
            If you’re not going to do people the basic courtesy of engaging the points they make, and instead are going to rely on endlessly repeating your strawmen, obfuscation, distractions and other fallacious arguments, then I don’t see why anybody should do you the courtesy of reading your walls of text

        • Didymus Judas Thomas

          “B: No, the comments you posted stated what Burzynski’s PR team say about the status. That’s not the same thing as stating the status. See also point G”

          If you do not like what the Clinic posted, contact PR Dolcefino

          “G: I think I’ve been pretty clear about this: Burzynski is a proven fraudster
          So just to be clear: I have absolutely made up my mind. Burzynski is a fraudster”

          I read your:

          “Not quite”

          “12: No, I don’t know why the antineoplastons disappeared from the site. All I posted was the fact that they have disappeared, and that the reason for this is unknown. I suggested one possible reason, but that reason is speculative. If you have inside information on the definitive reason why information about antineoplastons is gone, please do share”

          Didn’t you read the FDA Warning Letter by following the link you provided ?

          “warning he received from the FDA”

          Feel free to contact PR Dolcefino or the FDA Clinical Trials Office:
          http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/MediaContacts/default.htm

          “As for your other points, I feel you’re just going over old ground and there’s no point in my replying further”

          If you are going to insist on “Unknown” because you do NOT want to access the 2 NCI (cancer . gov) links I provided, so be it

          You did notice that on:

          clinicaltrials . gov

          if you select one of those “Unkowns,” it displays:

          “Verified ____, ____ by National Cancer Institute (NCI)”

          “Information provided by:
          National Cancer Institute (NCI)”

          “Further study details as provided by National Cancer Institute (NCI):”

          Contact: Stanislaw R. Burzynski, MD, PhD

          Investigators
          Study Chair: Stanislaw R. Burzynski, MD, PhD

          “If you really want to know the answer to those questions, read the original post and my previous comments”

          Saul Green is NOT a reliable source
          He worked for Emprise litigation with insurance company where the Judge required the insurance co pay Burzynski’s attorneys $11,000; for going behind the Judge’s back and sending official looking letters to companies that had Burzynski patient records, in order to dupe those companies into sending them patient records

          the judge stated in his decision

          The other insurance companies thought they were facing

          “an official mandate of the Court,”

          said the judge

          The result was that the attorneys received private records of Dr. B’s patients in disregard not just of the judge’s orders but of confidentiality

          “I’m very troubled”

          by this situation, the judge told the lawyers in a phone conference, calling their indifference to his order

          “almost unconscionable”

          Green did not disclose this in his 6/3/1992 Article
          http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=397590

          • Contact Dolcefino? Why would I do that?

            If my doctor recommends a proven treatment and I ask him about it, for some reasen he never asks me to contact the PR for the manufacturer.

            If the treatment is effective and safe I can look up the published results of clinical trials, which he will also show me.

            Ah, yes, I see the problem now…

    • Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan)

      Agreed. Absolutely clueless. So he repeats the claim that Burzynski has a PhD by posting a link to the movie website and a copy of the obituary, thinking this is evidence. Seriously??? Would love to see how far that would fly in a court of law! As for studying from 1961 to 1968, he says there’s no evidence he wasn’t studying biochemistry courses. There are several elephants in the room he misses there, not least of which is the length of time and intensity required to study medicine! Oh, and of course the fact that Lublin University didn’t offer doctorate courses back then. On the one hand he wants us to ignore the lack of publications by Burzynski as being evidence of failure while wanting us to accept the apparent lack of evidence as to whether Burzynski studied biochemistry to PhD level as evidence he has a PhD in biochemistry! Talk about double standards!!!! Of course, when Burzynski first arrived in the USA, he only claimed a DMSc., not a PhD. Oh, then there’s the evidence that Saul Green obtained from Lublin University Faculty regarding Burzynski’s studies – a one year course with no independent research. Fundamental omissions. He quotes from Burzynski’s CV regarding his 1968 doctoral submission – something that no-one can seem to find. If Burzynski had made a doctoral submission, then he would have a copy or it would be traceable within the Lublin library. Strange, then, how neither Burzynski nor anyone else has ever produced a copy. Oh, and then, the doctoral submission would have to be accepted!
      He then attempts a Gish Gallop of the various poster abstracts, not understanding the peer review process! Even I’ve had posters at conferences – full publications they are not.
      Once again, all we have is bluster, avoidance, denial and obfuscation. Standard fayre from a Burzynski shill.

  7. Robert Quickert

    Burzynski false disciple (Bfd; since the commenter chooses not to refer to those to whom he comments by name on Twitter, he does not deserve such courtesy here): Burzynski doesn’t have to publish on any timeline, he can publish when he chooses, years later. Strange that the vast majority of other scientists in the world seem to publish within a reasonable time frame, without having to wait for all their other related research to be completed. Which is more likely: he has adopted the approach suggested by Bfd because it is his right to do so, or he has decided not to publish in a timely fashion to avoid scrutiny? If the former, why is he alone among scientists in not publishing in a timely fashion? If he thinks he has such a fantastic cure for cancer, why not get the word out sooner?

    • It is a stable feature of quacks that their lack of acceptance is always everybody else’s fault but their own.

      The Burzynski shill seems to be working on the basis that Burzynski is a quack and therefore this is the appropriate response in his case.

      That is his problem, not ours. History shows that when everybody qualified to venture an opinion tells you that you are wrong, consistently, for years at a time, it is almost always because you are wrong.

    • Didymus Judas Thomas

      False #Burzynski critic

      1. Ignores that Burzynski has published preliminary reports
      2. The Clinic has clearly stated why it has not published final results of all A10 and AS2-1 clinical trials
      3. No reason for Burzynski to publish before necessary as it is not like he needs to do so for funding purposes
      4. FDA wants Phase 3 trials anyway, so it is not like not publishing as fast as critics want is going to make a difference
      5. A lot of people (incorrectly) thought the Earth was flat, the Earth was the center of the universe, quasicrystals did not exist, etc

      • 1. Preliminary reports? After over 40 years of investigation and 61 trials registered in two decades? Not persuasive, not in any way.
        2. Arm-waving. 40 years of investigations, two decades, 61 trials, no credible published proof of efficacy and safety.
        3. The reason to publish is fuck all to do with Burzynski’s pocket and everything to do with ethics. When you enrol human subjects in a trial, you are under a moral obligation to publish the results. Does the consent form say “we will do this trial, which might kill you or cure you, and we’ll keep the data to ourselves until we think we can make money from it”? Well, it might, given the lax standards and conflict of interest of the Burzynski IRB but it’s unlikely.
        4. That is breathtaking chutzpah. Real medical researchers publish all along the way, saying it’s not necessary to publish phase 2 because phase 3 is required for approval is (a) bullshit and (b) unethical bullshit.
        5. The Galileo gambit. You ignore (as alt med shills always do) the fact that the vast majority of people who are dismissed as wrong, are just that: wrong. If he wants people to believe he’s right there is a simple way forward: publish full data from all the trials.

  8. Tom

    Whilst one can certainly appreciate the merit of quashing the claims of quack scientists, the amount of effort spent on repetitive accusations at the Burzynski clinic seems somewhat over-the-top.

    It is clear that lots of valuable investigation has been done by intelligent people that has provided patients with the info needed to make a balanced decision about their treatment. And it is also clear that there are lots of people determined to continue to press for further evidence from Burzynski. This is a good thing.

    But the scrum of people attacking supporters of the clinic seems like overkill. I know it may seem ridiculous to you that people are willing to defend these people, but it’s clear they’ve made their mind up, just as you have made up yours. You’re unlikely to change the mind of someone just because you think you know better. You might be entirely correct, but the world is filled full of all sorts of people. Some people are misguided. That will never change.

    Instead of ranting and raving about Burzynski repeatedly, why not leave it the other people who will no doubt continue their work, and instead focus on something new that will actually be productive and beneficial for both you and the wider world.

    • We’re not the ones making movies, or the ones raising hundreds of thousands of dollars from kind-hearted strangers to send people for an oversold unproven treatment.

        • You are still blustering. The simple fact is that Burzynski has not provided any credible evidence to support his claims. He provably makes extravagant claims of the chances of success, he is not an oncologist, he has taken on patients in clinical trials with no apparent intention of publishing them, in defiance of the Helsinki Protocol. Those are the problems. Not skeptics, not the FDA, not NCI, the problem is his own actions.

    • Adam Jacobs Adam Jacobs

      Hello Tom

      Forgive me if I’m being a bit slow here, but are you saying I’m wasting my time writing this blogpost in the first place, or engaging with Didymus in the comments?

      If the latter, then I think I probably agree. He only keeps repeating the same stuff, and as I’ve already answered him, I won’t be replying to any more of his comments.

      But if the former, then I would point out that I blog about many other things apart from Burzynski. Have a look at some of the other posts on this blog and I hope you’ll find plenty of variety.

      Adam

      • Didymus Judas Thomas

        Adam does not want to admit that the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) data overrules the clinicaltrials . gov data

        It’s all about that British “stiff upper lip” and not watching enough Monty Python, Benny Hill, or Fawlty Towers when growing up

        It sometimes can be like a disease

  9. Adam Jacobs Adam Jacobs

    In the interests of transparency, I should point out that Didymus has left another comment which I’ve not approved. This is not something I do lightly: I hate to censor comments, and believe firmly that everyone should have their say. However, the comment I consigned to the spam bin was another long, pointless, rambling one, with many irrelevant links. It doesn’t say anything of importance that Didymus hasn’t already said in his previous comments. I fear that Didymus is simply trying to make these comments unreadable by posting large quantities of irrelevance, and that’s something I really don’t think I can allow.

    Any future comments from Didymus with similar quantities of distraction material will be treated similarly.

  10. I thought I’d wait a couple of weeks until the comments had dried up just to add a point for DJT.

    @Djt – As much as I enjoy seeing the ping backs appear as you continually quote sections of emails from Wayne, you fail in a basic level of critical thinking. Wayne Dolcefino works for the clinic and as such he will use positive language to support the clinic and their work. Quoting things he says isn’t evidence, it’s hearsay and nothing more. I know that hearsay is pretty much all you’ve got. In my opinion it feels like the clinic are just using delaying tactics and have no real interest in publishing. If they did, they could have by now in many journals. PLoS One would love to publish his results, IF they were rigorous enough. We shouldn’t be playing a waiting game after 35 years… And seriously, who quotes anything written on my blog‽

  11. Pingback: SKEPT!CAL blog Wayne Dolcefino, The Burzynski Clinic and the Institutional Review Board » SKEPT!CAL blog

  12. Pingback: SKEPT!CAL blog BBC's Panorama to air Burzynski Documentary - Contact the Skeptics » SKEPT!CAL blog

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>