Stanislaw Burzynski and the Antineoplaston Scam

"First Do No Harm"

[Note: the opinions expressed below are those of the contributor alone and publication does not indicate that The Disinformation Company endorses those opinions. This post was submitted as a response to the earlier post Burzynski: Fighting the Big Pharma Cartel to Cure Cancer.]

Over 10 years ago, a friend of mine whose son had spent the better part of the past year fighting a brain tumor called me and said that her boy was too sick to be included in an experimental trial at St. Jude’s. She was truly disconsolate and desperate. She told me that she had heard of a doctor “out West” who was treating cancer patients with an extract of human urine and was reported to have cured all sorts of cancers. With a very heavy heart I had to destroy the last hope for a cure for her son; if he had really cured cancer, he would have multiple Nobel Prizes for curing one of man’s most universally feared scourges. She was devastated, but she saved her son the trial of a last long trip, and he died peacefully at home a few weeks later, which I guess is worth something.

I never forgave that doctor for putting me in that position, and only last year I found out who he was. His name is Stanislaw Burzynski. He works out of his clinic in Houston. He is the discoverer, manufacturer, prescriber, and dispenser of what he calls “antineoplastons” (ANP), which he first extracted from human urine in the 1970s but now produces synthetically. I learned his name because an occasional employee of his had sent legalistic threats to bloggers who questioned the validity of his treatments, which he has given for over 30 years under the guise of “clinical testing” with staggeringly unpromising results. What brought Burzynski back to the attention of the blogosphere was the way that Burzynski’s shill and occasional hired help, Marc Stephens, not only threatened teenageer Rhys Morgan’s family with legal action but also sent them a picture of their house, the unmistakable message “we know where you live.”

Despite the thuggery of some of his supporters (which included the creation of a website at the same IP as burzynskipatientgroup.org that defamed numerous skeptics, myself included, as pederasts), his decades-long failure to produce a single convincing study about ANP’s efficacy, and the fact that his medical license is under review for a host of alleged ethical violations, including “the failure to meet the standard of care, negligance, lack of informed consent, unprofessional conduct, and nontheraputic prescribing,” Burzynski continues to practice. The aggravating factors applied to the Texas Medical Board’s lawsuit include:

1      Harm to one or more patients;

2      Economic harm to any individual or entity and the severity of such harm;

3      Severity of patient harm;

4      One or more violations that involve more than one patient; increased potential harm to the public;

5      Intentional, premeditated, knowing, or grossly negligent act constituting a violation; and

6      Prior similar violations. (Source: casewatch.org)

From the position of an informed patient advocate, everything about the Burzynski Clinic reeks of medical charlatanry. He is not a trained oncologist, but he is treating cancer. He posits a novel mechanism for cancer (a patient’s lack of antineoplastons) that is unrecognized in the medical literature as a cause. His ANP is marketed as an alternative to chemotherapy, but he gives patients chemo cocktails mixed with “terrifying” doses of sodium phenylbutyrate, mixtures that have not been adequately tested for safety and which causes hypernatremia in his patients. He has sold ANP not only as a cancer treatment, but also as an HIV treatment, an unjustified action for which he was severely disciplined by the Texas Medical Board. Checks for donations that are meant to go “toward the continuation of the Clinical Trials and Research” are to be made out directly to “S.R. Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D.” He has initiated over 60 phase II studies over the decades and seems to have completed exactly zero of them. Three independent investigations, published together in The Cancer Letter, concluded that his studies were “uninterpretable,” and that Burzynski defined successful treatment as “stable disease,” a lowered standard that no other oncologist or researcher accepts.

An important sign of quackery is the depiction of the doctor as a lone genius fighting against special interests trying to suppress crusading work. This is, of course, bunk. What is routinely cited as evidence of a vast conspiracy against Burzynski is the routine prosecution of a run of the mill repeat offender. Nonetheless saying that he has sinister forces arrayed against him gives Burzynski an excuse to never produce evidence of efficacy that could be tested by an outside group.

There is something distinctly aberrant about Burzynksi’s supporter base, and a cult of personality surrounds the man unlike anything that I have seen in other medical schemes. At the root of cults is a psychological dependence on the leader, and Burzynski’s cult nurtures his patients’ dependence on him by making them fear and distrust modern medicine, stripping away desperately ill patients’ hope in legitimate, tested therapies and substituting them with his “treatment”. Abominable.

Instead of evidence garnered from clinical trials published in peer-reviewed journals, Burzynski relies heavily on patient testimonies to peddle his wares. Testimonials are no substitute for controlled clinical trials. No matter how many testimonials Burzynski and his patients put forward, no matter how passionate and moving those stories are, no matter how grateful and indebted his patients feel toward him, the fact remains that no amount of bad evidence is equal to a single piece of good evidence. He has had over 35 years to produce that single piece of good evidence and has utterly failed to do so. This, however, has not stopped him from charging $30,000 for an initial visit to his clinic and $7,000 per month for treatment thereafter. At least that’s the quote that one of his most recent victims was given. She died last week. (A curious side note to this case: the above cited article reports, “The [Burzynski clinic] has currently been approved for Phase III Clinical Trial for Antineoplastons treatment and Mackey’s brain tumor met the criteria to be accepted as a patient in the trial.” When you look at the entry for the clinic’s only Phase III trial at clinicaltrials.gov, the current status of that study is “Not Yet Recruiting.” What was this family told, I want to know?)

As you might expect, many people cannot afford the cost of Burzynksi’s treatment, which routinely reaches more than $100,000, and when that happens, they often make desperate appeals to the public so that they can make the trip to Houston. A year ago, when Marc Stephens started going after critics of the clinic, after seeing the testimonials of patients who appeared in ad man Eric Merola’s infomercial Burzynski (reviewed here by a horrified surgical oncologist and patient advocate), and after looking at the collection testimonials on the Burzynski patient group website, I wanted to see an unbiased sample of Burzynski’s patients. When you select your sample group by outcome, you are going to produce a very skewed view of the treatment. (This is the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, essentially drawing a bullseye around a bullet hole.) I went back into my university’s databases to see if I could the patients who appeared in the press begging for money to see Burzynski. When I did, I found that with a single exception, every damned patient I could find in the LexisNexis Academic database who had appeared in the press begging for money to see Burzynski and whose outcome I could find had died. When his supporters don’t select the cases you get to see, a very, very disturbing picture of his practice emerges.

It turns out that I’m not the only one who has tried to get a sense of Burzynski’s outcomes, since he is not forthcoming with it. In 1985, The Canadian Bureau of Prescription Drugs followed up with doctors whose patients had gone to Burzynski. Of the 36 cases they tracked down, only two remained alive at the time of the survey, and they had both had radiotherapy before going to Burzynski (they both were still fighting cancer). There was little indication that any of the other victims had responded to Burzynski’s treatment either. If he has a cure–or even a viable treatment–it is a moral imperative that he completes a phase III clinical trial that can be reproduced by other researchers, otherwise all of the other deaths his treatment would have prevented are on his hands. If he is being honest about his treatment, he is apparently OK accepting responsibility for those deaths.

If I may anticipate a number of objections this essay is likely to spawn. The first will be a litany of examples of people who have gone to Burzynski and who are still alive. “Explain this then!” Burzynski’s supporters will say. They fail to realize, of course, that it is not my job to explain how this person survived an encounter with this doctor. The burden is on Burzynski to demonstrate that his treatment contributed to the patient’s survival. The only way to establish whether or not it is likely that a patient was cured by Burzynski is through a controlled drug trial designed to evaluate efficacy. Trying to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic is does not magically give Burzynski a valid phase III clinical trial. Or a single phase II trial, for that matter.

The second objection that will be raised will sound something like, “Who’s paying you to write this?” Unfortunately, nobody. But let’s pretend that it’s true, that I am Big Pharma’s spokesperson and that I merely post under my name what is handed to me in an envelope by a shadowy figure in the FDA parking garage. Burzynski still hasn’t, in 30 years, bothered to produce a single study that convincingly suggests his drugs work. Find me one, and I will turn on my evil naughty paymasters and tell all!

The third objection will be, “Conventional therapy is expensive and barbaric and often ineffective.” This is sadly true. However, all other cancer researchers are expected to show their work, and there are gobs of independently verified evidence that show that while modern cancer treatment can be staggeringly unpleasant, traumatic, and uncertain, the best practices in the aggregate improve patient outcomes. This is what Burzynski has failed to demonstrate in spades and is why no competent oncologist would ever commend her patient into his care. We don’t expect him to produce anything more than the bare minimum amount of evidence that every respectable researcher produces.

In my opinion, Stanislaw Burzynski is a predator, a medical monster on the order of John Brinkley, the Depression era goat-gland doctor who made millions maiming countless patients. Most despicable of all is that he exclusively targets the most desperate and most vulnerable patients before leaving them to their fate. It baffles me that Houston, the local government, and the local press have tolerated his presence for decades. At the very least, it seems that the FDA and Texas Medical Board are trying to crack down on him, but they have had over three decades to do so. There are few things worse than cancer. I believe Stanislaw Burzynski is one of them.

Bob Blaskiewicz writes the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry’s “Conspiracy Guy” column and is a blogger at Skeptical Humanities, a contributor to the James Randi Educational Foundation’s Swift Blog, and a panelist on the weekly web show The Virtual Skeptics. He is a Visiting Assistant Professor of Writing at the University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire.

, , ,

  • bobbiethejean

    Excellently written, very well said. One might think that given the amount of time he’s had, Burzynski would have produced some real results by now. I hope your article will convince some of the people who still think there is any legitimacy to Burzynski’s shameless, abominable racket.

    • http://twitter.com/HealthySol4U Healthy Solutions

      There is a mountain of real results.. There is also a mountain of evidence that Gov. and Elan Pharmaceuticals tried ton discredit the first studies by not following the proper protocol and at the same time went behind Burzynski’s back and patented the process. This is very well documented stuff and widely known..

      • bobbiethejean

        No it’s not well documented and no it is not well-known. Burzynski was given every benefit of the doubt for years and years and he failed to provide anything. Besides, if this shit was real, don’t you think other places in the world would have picked up on it? By what you’re implying, it wouldn’t just be a US government conspiracy, it would be a worldwide conspiracy involving a world of governments and scientific bodies.

  • Vera

    Thank you for posting this. I love Disinfo, but its community has a tendency to embrace anything that sounds anti-establishment – even to its own detriment.

    I have had family members sucked in by similar, albeit smaller-scale, charlatans. It’s unconscionable, and in my opinion just as evil as the actions of the pharmaceutical industry. More, possibly, since these “doctors” get to know their patients by name and face.

    • DeepCough

      “I love Disinfo, but its community has a tendency to embrace anything that sounds anti-establishment….”
      I don’t want come off as the Official Spokesman or anything, but we here at Disinfo think David Icke
      is fucking nuts and a goddamned shill.

  • mahajohn

    It’s very evident that the good doctor must be some kind of delusional or extremely greedy psychopath.

  • IDoubtIt00

    Thank you, Bob, and all the others in the links you cited, for doing this work.

    It’s extremely difficult to write anything negative about what is sold as a “breakthrough cancer treatment”. One looks like an unfeeling cynic. Those who are desperate for a cure want that hope and it looks as if you are dashing it. But what good is a promise of cure that is false hope? It’s inhumane to do what Burzynski is doing. It’s awful to face the wrath of true believers on these topics but the public who may be considering such treatment for themselves or their loved ones NEED to be aware of these heinous issues that surround ANP treatment and the Burzynski clinic.

    • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

      Hemp Oil is another cure. Of course you will get your cult to shit on anything that could actually help people if it gets in the way of corporate profit. Or am I wrong and you all secretly want “drugs” or natural medicine like cannabis to be legalized?

      • http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk Guy Chapman

        No, it is not a cure. It is just one more in a long line of “alternative cures” which are mutually contradictory and unsupported by credible evidence. Cancer is one area in which one can reliably apply the old adage that if something seems too good to be true, then it is – and any purported cure based on a single simple intervention, be it vitamin megadoses, hemp oil, apricot kernels or magic water, is always a scam. Cancer is not on disease, it is a collection of diseases some of them extremely complex. Prognosis is inexact, but sellers of “cancer woo” exploit factors such as natural variations in the progression of disease to convince their victims that the magic product works.

        There is, in fact, no such thing as alternative medicine. There is medicine, which is the set of things which can be proven to work, and there is the alternative to medicine, which is the collection of things that either can’t be shown to work or (in many cases) have been unambiguously shown not to. In this latter category we can place such nonsense as laetrile, Gerson therapy, homeopathy and so on. You’ll notice that the fact they are known not to work does not stop people promoting these fraudulent practices, and it doesn’t stop desperate people from trying them.

        The most disturbing thing for me about the whole alternative cancer world is that it is exploiting vulnerable sick people. That’s why countries such as the UK and Australia have laws making it illegal to advertise claims to treat or cure cancer. If you want to sell a cancer “cure” here you must first prove that it works, in which case it will be used by doctors regardless of its origin (most drugs start from naturally occurring products, after all). Alternative cancer cures never do this. They never go down the route of robust science, they advertise direct to consumers using testimonials which may be misleading or even fake, and people who use them tend to die sooner and with more advanced cancer.

        • ninja noob

          So, you think that just cause the medical establishments get behind chemo, a 30 year old treatment and don’t budge that it is the way to go? the usa was brainwashed in the 50′s heavily by tv and nazi brain control. It’s on a whole nother level now, causing us to squable amongst ourselves in the sea of disinfo. While the fat cats collect their money and run the offices that are supposed to investigate them. I’m more convinced cancer is simple. You don’t have enough positive energy within the body causing blockages and stagnation. Which is caused from tons of different sources including gmo food and electromagnetic frequencies.

          Where as there are plenty of “cures” to reverse this process to make the cell charged again so they don’t stick together and flow. Such as healthy vegetables, exercise and natural herbs that get your energy balanced. So my thoughts is that their probably an infinite amount of ways to cure cancer. How do you know that people who do chemo and live arn’t just fighting the chemo and the cancer. Arn’t their people diagnosed with cancer who have it go away without treatment? that has happened im pretty sure and i dont even need to look it up because im positive it has happened. you can call me ignorant for not believing a book, newspaper or agency that is probably lieing to me. But i’ll listen to my gut on this one.

          I remember doing some research on cancer that talked about how cancer thrives in an acidic environment and dies within an alkaline environment. Sugars, meats and proteins(most common foods found in american diets) create an acidic environment, where as fruits and veggies make it alkaline. What if Brzezinski just has a drug that makes the system more alkaline? I agree he’s probably out for profit, but then again, who isn’t these days… it seems to be how the system works. (makes me wanna puke tbh) Can’t blame him though, what with the government sending out his agents to eat out his substance.

          • Artor

            It’s a tired old phrase, but appropriate here. Do you know what alternative medicine is called when it’s been proven to work? Medicine. The mere fact that something is still labeled “alternative” medicine indicates that it has not survived any rigorous testing. If it’s for something serious like cancer, it should have been tested to hell & back by now, so if it hasn’t proven it’s effectiveness, that’s a pretty solid indication that it’s complete bullshit. What if Burzynski is doing something that happens to fit your own alt-med fantasy? I don’t know, but it sure would be nice to see some actual testing to prove that it works or not. Anything else is just making shit up.
            Sure, the medical establishment is out to make money, but to imagine that your gut feelings are more effective at determining the truth than peer-reviewed trials is absurd. Enjoy your fantasy world.

          • john

            You’re ignoring the fact (there is evidence) that peer review is not only corrupt but a broken process – yet you still treat it like gospel. That’s not very scientific is it. And why would a company pay millions to run trials on an unpatentable alternative natural medicine…are corporations benevolent? You’ll find out the hard way in the future because let’s face it we are all VICTIMS of corporate greed in one way or another even you skeptics.

          • Artor

            Seriously? You’re claiming that peer review is corrupt. broken and “unscientific?” Show some evidence for that claim, you ignorant troll. You can’t even know what science is if you can say something like that. Really, get some education before you hurt yourself.

          • http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk Guy Chapman

            The scientific method is the best way ever designed to separate fact form fiction. Some people have manipulated the scientific method. That does not validate people who have entirely failed to follow it.

            There is no objectively testable difference between Burzynski’s claims and those of any one of a hundred known cancer quacks. The only way to fix that – the only way – is for him to fully publish his trials. He has had 35 years to do this, and has failed to do so. At what point do you think this can be filed with all the other well-known excuses for not handing in your homework? Oh, sorry, sir, I haven’t filed the sixtieth clinical trial, the dog ate the data. And the fifty-ninth was all written up and good to go but I left it on the bus.

          • http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk Guy Chapman

            Absolutely not. I think that the scientific method is the best way we have ever found of telling truth from fiction, and that people who use propaganda in lieu of the scientific method always turn out to be frauds.

            Burzynski has registered 60 phase II clinical trials. He has been allowed to do this by the FDA despite never having published the results of a single one of them. That shows that (a) the FDA is not “oppressing” him and (b) he is not able to produce evidence that meets basic scientific standards.

            It is incredibly easy to manipulate clinical trials. Pharmaceutical companies do it all the time. If you ave a new drug that is equivalent to, or even slightly worse than, current standard of care, it is ridiculously easy to get it approved.

            Sixty trials of Burzynski’s treatment, all run by him so guaranteed to give him the best chance of success, any one of which would, if successful, be a critical step towards the FDA approval he clearly craves, and would give his work important international credibility. Not one result has been published.

            This is not about whether chemo is good, bad or indifferent, it’s about someone who claims to have a “cure” that is massively better than chemo, and is charging cancer patients tens of thousands of dollars to be guinea pigs for it, but who has failed after 35 years of investigation to publish the evidence required to prove that it actually works.

            That’s why people call him a quack. Not because he’s going against “big pharma” but because he is trying to do an end-run around rules introduced to protect the public from snake-oil salesmen.

        • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nm7nqUigFA I would take the word and work of Rick Simpson before a doctor who is required by his hamstrung through violent coercion to not allow “alternative” therapies or medicine even though you don’t believe they exist by your own very narrow and ignorant definition. By the way my brother was a doctor in the best shape of his life before he started chemo. One year later we were burying him. People like you simply have a sick agenda to perpetuate the status quo and ignore and avoid outright anything that doesn’t fit into your little mental boxes. You are simply ignoring mountains of evidence for a preferred ideological belief.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire
          • http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk Guy Chapman

            Yes, I have done a lot of homework. I’d like to share the results with you.

            Anyone who claims to have a miracle cure to cancer which is suppressed or ignored by the medical establishment for reasons of profit, is a quack, a charlatan and most likely a crook. There is an overwhelming body of evidence to prove this, and it has been the case for at least a hundred years.

            I hope you make good use of the fruits of my labours.

          • http://www.facebook.com/weee12 Zach Morgan

            http://www.endalldisease.com/spain-study-confirms-hemp-oil-cures-cancer-without-side-effects/ dude hemp oil shrinks tumors im not listening to any of your bs you trolling fuck.

          • http://cory.albrecht.name/ Cory Albrecht

            Pointing out red flags – like the claim of a miracle cure – that indicate a strong possibility of quackery is not trolling. Another red flag for hemp oil curing cancer is shown by the fact that searching “hemp oil cancer” returns a pathetic three results. There should be hundreds, if not thousands, if this claim were true. Also, the discovered of it would have a Nobel prize in medicine by now.

            Which is more reasonable? That there’s a global conspiracy going on for decades concealing the efficacy of hemp oil? Or that the people who claim such are trying to sell you snake oil instead, with no research evidence to back up their claims?

          • ninja noob

            My thoughts are that people in power want people to die. Look at all the
            bullshit that is pushed on us telling us that people are bad and we
            need to cut back our population to save the earth. they think co2 is gunna kill us, maybe if they stopped cutting down all the trees and polluting our ecosystems with mass produced crap we wouldn’t have to worry about it.

            Believe it or not the people that run the show don’t wanna share their
            toys with everyone. So having something like cancer running rampant is
            one of these peoples best tools to kill the masses while keeping them
            looking innocent. How are you supposed to bring a disease to trial? you
            can’t. They want it to kill us so there is less of us to call them out on their power trips. Why is it so hard to think that the people that pull the strings at the top wouldn’t suppress or try to stall cures for cancer as long as they can.

          • http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk Guy Chapman

            That is what is known in the trade as conspiracist twaddle. People in power are concerned about the likes of Burzynski because history shows that greater than 99% of people who behave like that are charlatans, quacks and frauds, and we rightly regard controlling such exploitative behaviour as a proper part of government.

          • john

            You poor thing. I didn’t realise you were THAT ASLEEP to be so closed minded.

          • http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk Guy Chapman

            I always try to keep an open mind, just not so open that my brain falls out.

          • Richard Cornford

            Cancer is primarily a disease of the elderly, which makes it useless as a form of population control (the elderly being the people who likely have already done all the reproducing they were ever going to do).

          • http://twitter.com/jefflaurie2 jeff laurie

            • 72,000 adolescents and young adults aged 15-39 are diagnosed with
            cancer. º
            • That’s one every eight minutes.
            • 10,000 young
            adults die annually due to cancer. º
            • That’s one every hour.

            Over the past 30 years:

            Cancer incidence in young adults has increased more than any other age group.
            ¹
            • Survival rates have not improved at the same rate as other age
            groups. ¹
            • Cancer has become the number one disease killer in young
            adults. ¹
            • Young adults are now the most underserved patient
            population by age. ¹
            • Delayed cancer diagnosis is now
            disproportionately higher in young adults. ¹

          • http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk Guy Chapman

            In as much as I can make sense of what you write, you appear to be arguing that a testimonial is more compellig than the accumulated weight of scientific evidence. You’re wrong. The motto of the Royal Society is “nullius in verba” – take no man’s word for it. It sums up the scientific method. What matters is not who says something, but the quality of evidence they present.

            The only thing that matters here is the science. If Burzynski had scientifically robust evidence that his treatment worked, then we would not even be having this discussion. What makes it alternative is the fact that he lacks this proof, but sells the treatment as if he had it.

          • http://www.litmocracy.com/ Dave, Voluntaryist Webmaster

            “There is medicine, which is the set of things which can be proven to work”

            “you appear to be arguing that a testimonial is more compellig than the accumulated weight of scientific evidence.”

            I think you mean “accumulated weight of a LACK of scientific evidence.” Right?

          • Calypso_1

            What kind of cancer was it and what stage was it in when diagnosed?

        • john

          Just so you’re aware – there is a LOT of scientific evidence behind laetrile (apricot kernels) but I’m willing to bet you will ignore that or lie your way out.

          • http://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz Bob Blaskiewicz

            Apricot kernels contain amygdalin, which breaks down into hydrogen cyanide, which is is every bit as poisonous as it sounds. Eat a bag of them and you are dead as a dodo. The Birch Society saw their banning (because, hey, bag of poison) as sinister and made up this story that they were suppressing a cure for cancer. See: “Leatrile and the Law.” 1979. New Scientist, 11 January, 88.

          • http://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz Bob Blaskiewicz

            Show me the evidence, I guess.

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            Apricot kernals are delicious.

          • http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk Guy Chapman

            Yes, there is a lot of scientific evidence that apricot kernels contain cyanide and that eating large quantities of them will kill you. Actual, credible, usable, testable evidence supporting laetrile? Not so much.

            http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/about-cancer/treatment/complementary-alternative/therapies/laetrile

            “There is no scientific evidence to support claims that laetrile or amygdalin can treat cancer or any other illness”

            This is absolutely an unassailably correct.

        • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

          St. John’s Wort is considered alternative medicine isn’t it?

          • Artor

            It contains various compounds that have been tested & proven to be effective on various problems like stress & depression. A German company has somehow managed to patent the whole plant, while other companies are trying to figure out how to synthesize the active compounds. If you are willing to self-diagnose & self-medicate, you can use St.John’s Wort ointments, but the quality & dosage are likely to vary widely if not made in a certified laboratory. It can be used as part of an alternative medicine regime, but inasmuch as it has been tested & proven, the compounds it produces can also be used in real, mainstream medicine.

        • http://www.facebook.com/weee12 Zach Morgan

          they proved that daily doses of hemp oil shrinks tumors so it does have some effect and tommy chong is cancer free using nothing but healthy foods and hemp oil so go fuck yourself guy chapman
          http://www.endalldisease.com/spain-study-confirms-hemp-oil-cures-cancer-without-side-effects/

  • 1plakat

    I believe the person who actually cures cancer, wont charge so much for the cure up front.

    • Rex Vestri

      I believe it’s likely that Big Pharma and The Cancer Industry may have already discovered what cures cancer, but it’s something that isn’t patentable. Since they can’t make any money from it, they suppress it so that they can continue to make billions maintaining the status quo.

      • Jin The Ninja

        exactly.

        • ninja noob

          Well if there was no cure for cancer, people wouldn’t survive it.

          • Jin The Ninja

            if you can cite me a 90% success rate with nonrecurrence, i’ll conceed your point. until then…

          • sleat

            Wow, I think you just refuted the entire “standard of care” cancer treatment regime currently in use worldwide, whose success (i.e. survival) rate is extremely low. 90% is more like the figure for people diagnosed with cancer and treated conventionally who are guaranteed NOT to survive. Well done!

            I think it’s very important, Jin The Ninja, that Burzynski be held to a standard of efficacy several times higher than the other treatments he’s competing against. Fair is fair.

          • Calypso_1

            Your understanding of disease and cure in general is extremely limited even outside of more detailed knowledge of cancers. People survive cancers largely because of the extant of the staging (how far it has spread) when they are diagnosed and treated. This is true for many pathologies even outside of the particularly difficult and insidious nature of cancers.

            If you have a bacterial infection in your index finger that would normally easily respond to antibiotics but it spreads to your blood (sepsis) and you become systemically infected, there is a significant risk that you can die. Does that mean that an infection is incurable? No – But you have to look at factors such as spread of the disease. This is going contribute to the degree of systemic damage and the amount of medication required to combat the pathogen. At some point you are also giving medications and providing interventions to compensate for lose of body system functionality all of which have side effects and increase stress on the body.

            Cancer is no different. Most people who survive are in stage I-II, some III, IV – it’s awful, you hope for some remissions, some more time, but by nature of the disease it
            has spread to many locations and is interfering with the function of many organs. Would you have the same expectations for a ‘cure’ for somebody that has been riddled with bullets in the kidneys, liver, pancreas & lungs? (and in the case of cancer the bullets are the size of cells and self replicating) The body can only take so much damage.

      • Artor

        Cancer is not a single thing. There have been several cures found for some types of cancer, the HPV vaccine being a good example. But considering that Monsanto can patent genes to the point that they can successfully sue a farmer for the crime of getting his organic crops cross-pollinated by their franken-corn, Apple can patent, “Slide to Unlock,” and Owens-Corning can patent the color pink, I’m not sure how you can imagine some treatment to be “unpatentable.”

        • Rex Vestri

          Unpatentable would be perhaps a natural substance that was already known to exist.

          • Artor

            A German pharmaceutical company holds the patent for St.John’s Wort- a medicinal herb that’s been used for a couple thousand years now. They actually patented the whole, wild plant, and a court upheld it.

      • 1plakat

        That’s what I feel happens at times out of frustration, but at the same time its too paranoid, too much conspiracy. I don’t think they have the cure.

      • http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk Guy Chapman

        The term “cancer industry” is used solely by quacks, frauds and charlatans as part of their conspiracist excuses for failing the test of science.

        • sleat

          Well played, sir! Let’s see them refute THAT!

          What a glorious time to be alive, where all one need do to spot science fraud in the form of cancer-cure-quackery is to search for the phrase “cancer industry”. Quick and easy!

          Let’s see, $110.6 billion total worth in 2013, yeah, no industry there. Nothing more than a bunch of companies selling a bunch of expensive drugs, targetted in one area. No connection at all!

          http://www.drugs.com/news/global-market-cancer-therapies-slated-growth-through-2013-8407.html

          But, being devilishly clever, the quacks and charlatans will undoubtedly soon switch to the phrase “cancer therapy market”, so that will soon need to be abandoned by the legitimate practitioners as they scramble for higher moral ground.

  • Amber S K

    Great piece, Bob. I was disheartened to see the comments on the other disinfo piece you linked, calling skeptics a “cult” as though expecting to see evidence for claims is somehow abnormal. I’m at a loss to explain why it is easier to believe that the thousands of scientists out there trying to cure cancer are somehow just “faking it” and this one person is a lone hero rather than the reverse.

    • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

      OK, how about “internet subculture” ? You guys obviously band together and gain a sense of identity from it. You have your own lingo and inspiring quotes you repeat again and again. Would it bother you if you were to discover that a lot of people see you as a weird cult?

      • http://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz Bob Blaskiewicz

        Subculture is accurate, I think, Ted. We’re science junkies who think critical thinking has the capacity for making the world better.

      • IDoubtIt00

        Who are “you guys”? The oncologists? The physicians? The skeptics? The critical thinking public? So we are a group of people asking for evidence for a claim. What the hell is wrong with that? Produce the evidence, hold it up to the light. Stop messing around with promotion and condemning critics who just ask to see the goods you said you could produce. THAT is the basics, THE MINIMUM you ought to be showing when you are claiming to cure fucking cancer.

      • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

        Definitely a cult.

        • http://cory.albrecht.name/ Cory Albrecht

          Yeah, ’cause people asking Burzynski to back up his claims with evidence are obviously the same as Heaven’s Gate or Scientology.

      • http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk Guy Chapman

        You are partially right: most people who disbelieve crank claims are “shruggies”, they shrug their shoulders and don’t bother challenging obvious nonsense. So yes, the skeptic movement is a subculture within the world of scientific rationalism which actively takes on the fraudulent. We are the tip of a large iceberg. But the reason we use similar words is because they are the correct words to use: terms like “credible evidence” have a definite objective meaning, and are the test by which most “woo” fails. OK, “woo” is a term of art, but you have to admit it’s a cracker ;-)

  • Apathesis

    There’s a doc on Netflix about him. Reading this story, I am about to watch it right now. Urine as a cure? Nutty.

    Reminds me of Lyme disease and the doctors who have gotten into trouble for their treatments.

    • http://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz Bob Blaskiewicz

      Made by an ad guy. My students are watching it this week as an example of propaganda.

      • Apathesis

        I couldn’t bear more than twenty minutes of it. It was like a bad infomercial. The people on Netflix’s page love it.

      • Crank demagnetiser

        The guy who made that documentary is the brother of the guy who started the zeitgeist movement, another conspiracy crank group.

    • http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk Guy Chapman

      “Eric Merola, a former art director of commercials, is either unusually credulous, or doesn’t understand the difference between a documentary and an advertisement, or has an undisclosed relationship with the subject of his allegedly nonfiction first film. Consciously or not, Merola is shilling madly for Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, a Polish-born physician who has run afoul of federal authorities and shown up on several quackometers for his claim to have cured scores of patients of a lethal brain cancer with a treatment derived from human urine. Burzynski’s smooth patter and bad dye job don’t clinch the case against him—though how he gained the trust of desperate patients is anybody’s guess—but neither do they mitigate the powerful stench that rises from his plaintive cries of victimization by “jealous” government agencies. Narrated in a weirdly robotic voiceover, Burzynski violates every basic rule of ethical filmmaking: Merola interviews only Burzynski’s supporters, produces no patient records other than the doctor’s own, and offers no credible proof of the drug’s success and no data about its side effects, even as he slams chemotherapy and radiation. Who’s the bigger charlatan—Burzynski or Merola—and why is this conspiratorial rubbish being released into theaters?”

      http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-06-01/film/quack-quack-goes-burzynski/

      • ninja noob

        Your main argument against this guys is how he can’t make himself credible to the federal “authorities” but i seriously, how much credibility do the federal “authorities” even have any more?
        None in my book. Buncha power trippers if you ask me. I don’t even care much for Burzynski but I could care even less for the fda. For some reason, your responses rub me the wrong way, anyone who has anything to say to give the argument an equal footing you HAVE to say something to discredit it. it’s funny that you quote the village voice, wasn’t the village voice funded by rupert murdoch, a known globalist? isn’t that just a propaganda news site? it’s probably full to the brim with thought control inside the box thinking.

        • http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk Guy Chapman

          No, my main argument against him is that he has completely failed the most basic tests of science, which are publication and independent replication. Any clown can set up and claim they have a miracle cure, it happens all the time (see Jim Humble, for example, who thinks that drinking industrial bleach cures cancer). The best way we have of testing which of these claims is true and which bullshit, is the scientific method – which is the most reliable way yet identified for separating truth from fiction.

          The fact that Burzynski is going down the route of direct-to-patient marketing rather than publishing proper science, puts him in the same camp as the quacks. That’s his problem not mine!

          • ninja noob

            all is hear is name calling, what’s funny is bleach is an alkaline substance, alkaline environments have been known to kill cancer and reduce tumors where as acidic causes it to thrive. How does the doctors suggest in-taking bleach? im sure its not straight from the bottle but through a watered down treatment over time. Like i said, there are probably infinite amounts of cures for cancer, it is caused by an imbalance within the body. Not enough of the right nutrients or an overload of heavy metals. I remember watching the Burzynski documentary and i remember him mentioning that when the fda was running trials to replicate his experiments they deliberately didn’t follow his suggested treatment, they cut it off early or would not give sufficient amounts of the drug to their patients. To me it looked like they were tampering with the outcomes to make the doctor look like a quack. I respect your views and to be honest you have enlightened me on a few things so far but I still wouldn’t trust these government funded organizations that could and probably are blocking simple cures and natural medicinal treatments to stuff their own pockets. If you don’t got the money to give to them you ain’t livin, and that is the way they like it.

          • http://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz Bob Blaskiewicz

            It sure sounded to me like Burzynski was putting such restrictions on the protocols that he’d never fill the trials and get meaningful results.

          • Calypso_1

            “what’s funny is bleach is an alkaline substance, alkaline environments have been known to kill cancer and reduce tumors where as acidic causes it to thrive.”

            Acid-base balance in the body is a little more complicated. Information related to buffer systems, fluids & electrolytes and pathologies is readily available in well-codified knowledge pathways if you should wish to avail yourself to them.

          • http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk Guy Chapman

            If merely being alkaline was enough, there would be no shortage of cures. It’s not. There is no shortage of people making claims to cure cancer without surgery, chemo or radiotherapy. There is, however, an acute shortage of credible evidence that they are right.

            Burzynski has over sixty trials registered, and has not published the results of a single one of them. Given the ease with which trials can be manipulated if the results are even slightly positive, that does not look good for him.

      • Apathesis

        Oh, it’s so bad. I don’t know how people could be so dumb to finish that film and believe any of it. It was obvious from the the first few interviews that it was a bad infomercial selling a bullshit product.

  • dvdmcy

    If I were to place myself in the shoes of someone with cancer, Dr. Burzynski would be one of the first doctors I would look at for treatment. If not for any other reason, the simple fact that he is not leaving his patients with numerous side effects that are just as lethal as the prescribed cancer is one reason to look into his treatment. We as a society know that chemotherapy is extremely dangerous for anyone to undergo and can have multiple lethal side effects, as well as the probability of not working at all. Why not look into another treatment option at this point? And even though this article has the narrative to make him a ‘cult’ leader, he does have medical cases in which he has completely freed patients of brain cancer. This is fact. It is just not regulated under the FDA.

    He has never, in our own court of law, been convicted of anything, although NCI and FDA have continuously brought him into court to fight irrelivent problems. FDA even said that they do not disagree with the fact that his methods work, in court. In other words, They agree that what he does may work well. Why would they do this?

    the other side of the coin that you do not read in this article is how Dr. Burzynski tried hard to get the FDA to take him seriously with this treatment, but he was not met with respect, and the FDA regulated clinical trials that he pushed for were postponed by the FDA. You can watch the FDA in court with DR. burzynski and make up your own mind.

    the chemo-treatment that we have now to combat cancer, as we can all agree on, can be simply deadly and painful. Why go through that option with deadly side effects if there is an alternative that doesn’t leave the patient with more problems in such an important time in that patients life? Dr. Burzynski’s treatment alone might cause a side effect of dehydration. I would take that any day over Chemo.

    I do not know who is right in this situation being that I am a third-party to it. But all of us play this role as the third-party. We do not know who is right. The most we can do is argue in circles endlessly. But let us at least continue to look for alternatives to the treatment of radiation therapy, unbiasedly and with the intention of helping all who need help.

    If Dr. Burzynski has any method that may work as well as or better than radiation, then why not give him a fair and impartial chance to prove himself?

    • http://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz Bob Blaskiewicz

      Did I call it? Yes I did. LOL

    • http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk Guy Chapman

      The idea that his treatments have no side effects is provably false. Obviously, effective treatments for many cancers are currently very aggressive. Simply being less aggressive does not validate these (homeopathy, for example, is complete twaddle from beginning to end, but very gentle, so by your rationale a good choice).

      Burzynski’s treatment is not considered hopeful by anyone else who matters. And the FDA have just told him to stop promoting it as if the trials he has not published, have delivered evidence of effect.

      • Ahem

        so the above testimony from a guy who underwent Burzynski’s treatment with success I’m sure in your opinion some troll while you jump to conclusions with phrases like “is probably false”? Right you are if you think you are.

        • http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk Guy Chapman

          We have no idea what actually went on, even he only has Burzynski’s word for it. Burzynski also uses conventional chemo and radiotherapy, and where it has been possible to get and evaluate full records it turns out that a lot of people Burzynski claims to have “cured” were probably cured by chemo and/or surgery before they even set foot in the clinic.

          The point of science is to remove the subjective. Burzynski goes with the subjective and refuses to engage in proper scientific publication. To those with experience of cancer quacks, that says a lot. If he’s not a quack and a charlatan then he has worked remarkably hard to look like one, for no obvious purpose.

  • Ahem

    The movie showed that FDA stormed his office and confiscated his years of research, which now they’re asking proof for. You’re all a bunch of hypocrites brainwashed by the system, shut up.

    • http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk Guy Chapman

      Except that they didn’t. And he’s got 60 registered phase 2 trials, which implies he’s still able to work, but he has failed to publish the results of a single one of them, which implies that he is not producing the result he claims.

    • BabsonTask

      Not a movie. More like an infomercial.

  • Artor

    I’m glad that Disinfo published this in light of the piece from a few days ago uncritically fellating Burzynski and his fake treatments. I got into a little tiff with one of his credulous supporters in the comments who fell for every bit of the “brave maverick doctor fighting against the evil Big Pharma conspiracy” meme. This man is nothing more than a parasite & a fraud. I hope he ends up in jail soon, or at least completely barred from practicing medicine.

    • Artor

      LOL! I just now realized that the credulous idiot I was referring to was the author of the piece. He complained that I was getting all my anti-Burzynzki info from “skeptic” websites. As if I should look to credulous alt-med websites for factual information instead. How unfair of me!

      • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

        Next time somebody becomes mean just becaused they disagree with me, I will just shrug it off. Because I don’t like the kind of person I become when I stoop to your level.

        • Artor

          Yeah, I’m just a big meanie. Look, if you’ve read up on Burzynski, regardless of what you think of his “miracle medicine,” you have to know about the very real damage that he’s done. Namely, the frivolous lawsuits & slander against his critics; http://www.popehat.com/?s=burzynski
          and the enethical milking of his desperate patients; http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/05/10/two-more-tragic-tales-of-burzynski-patients/

          Yet you willingly hop on the bandwagon and sing his praises. Also, let us not forget the 60 clinical trials he’s started without completing any of them. If his antineoplastons are such a success, why does he have no data to show for it? The only reasonable conclusion is that he’s a fraud. Your credulous support for him makes you complicit to his fraud. You are doing real damage to desperate people, some of whom will read your turd of an article and sink the last of their funds into a quack treatment they think might work. I’m not being mean because I disagree with you. I’m being very barely polite because you are aiding and abetting a cynical fraud.

          • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

            You aren’t interested in a conversation. And to be Frank, I suspect you have a hard on forBurzynski for reasons other than your sheer altruism for cancer patients. You like arguing and calling people names on the internet. Let’s call a spade a spade here. I’ve been guilty of it myself. Its not a noble past time. Calling people stupid while trying to look smart, all the while saying your motivation is noble and out of a desire to help others-its not anything to be proud of.
            Hopefully, you’ve had finer moments.

          • http://twitter.com/HealthySol4U Healthy Solutions

            The trials were not completed because the NIH (who funded them) continuously changed the protocols and weakened the treatments. There is an unbelievable paper trail of this and it is disgusting. Patients who could have been helped were left to suffer because of this. You guys are spewing a lot of disinformation here. Look Im not trying to be mean or insult anyone here but please watch the documentary “Burzynski” It has all of the documents and the FULL story on all of this. The documents are all backed up on the movie’s website and then some… This stuff is all recorded in triplicate on all levels. There really is no arguing about what has happened here.

          • Artor

            I agree that the paper trail on Burzynski is disgusting, but it’s the good doctor who should be ashamed, not the skeptics who are rightly calling out his fraud. If the NIH is funding his studies, why is he charging his patients for their drugs, through a pharmacy he owns?http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/19/43165.htm Do you really imagine that “Big Pharma” is trying to quash something that might cure cancer? Why would they do that? They would make billions selling it, if it were true, and could be proven to work. Dr. B would be rich beyond his wildest dreams from selling the patent. So if it works, why is he running his scam? Also, please bear in mind that the Burzynski film is not a documentary, it’s a pro-Burzynski fluff piece, and should not be taken as reliable information. Cross-reference through other sources on the net, and it will quickly become obvious that Burzynski is a fraud, and a spectacularly horrible person. The only mystery is how he’s managed to stay out of jail so far.

  • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

    So Bob is posting here now…. Yeah glad to see one of Cass Sunstein’s test tube babies is officially in the motherfucking building. Or correct me if I am wrong, Who is your Cognitive Infiltration Daddy exactly?

    http://disinfo.com/2012/05/cognitive-infiltration-of-conspiracy-groups-white-house-official-cass-sunstein-confronted-video/

    Well at least here you can’t avoid my comments like you do on your blog eh Bobby Boy. Don’t take my word for it, http://skepticalhumanities.com/2011/06/23/sneak-preview-of-things-to-come/

    Hey Bobby Boy. Quick reality Litmus Test for you. Orange or Apple? Before you answer, just remember all the untold death and suffering enabled by the lies you speak.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk

    My real question is obviously do you still believe fires took down Building 7 in a manner totally consistent with controlled demolition? If so why? Because NIST says you should think this? Because the government’s ‘experts’ have stated this in their government funded ‘investigations’?

    In your own words please explain that to me.

    Again the WTC 7 test is an appropriate Litmus Test. Remember when I showed you in person and you stuttered and stammered? Remember when you then tried to say, oh look the penthouse collapsed first so NIST internal self destruction theory must be true!! I sure do, what a gas.

    • http://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz Bob Blaskiewicz

      Imagine a picture of a kitten here, Camron.

      • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

        Sure thing Bobby.

        • http://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz Bob Blaskiewicz

          ahem

          • Crank demagnetiser

            http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

            Typical disproven claim about WTC7. Move along crank.

          • http://cory.albrecht.name/ Cory Albrecht

            Yeah, well, Camron’s already decided what he knows and screw any new evidence that might come his way. After all, he knows better than everybody else, evidence be damned.

          • Kevin Leonard

            Really? That is your response to criticism and questioning? LOLcats? And 8 likes? This groupthink is enough to make me abandon this site, entirely. Certainly any comments or articles from you are going straight into the dustbin.

  • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

    Why are you guys so emotionally invested in this? Just curious. For the record, I am not emotionally invested in Burzynski, being the be all end all of curing cancer. He’s definitely not paying me either.

    You guys do seem to be some type of religious group to me. I am not just trying to insult you. You seem like the photo negative of a bunch of Evangelical Christians. I mean in the way you work together to polish the same arguments. You definitely appear to be crusaders for a cause. That just my impression.

    I feel like it would just be a big time and energy suck to get in a big argument with you guys. You get so emotional and nasty so fast. The only person that made me think was calypso and one other person who seemed more balanced but also skeptical of Burzynski.

    • Miracles

      Yes, and very often they are. Groupthink has descended upon Disinfo and those that go against the flow are quickly ostracized and ignored.

      • Andrew

        Agreed.

    • http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk Guy Chapman

      The “religion” is called the scientific method. We are quite pasisonate about it, and equally passionate about the kinds of quacks, crooks and charlatans who peddle worthless crap to people with serious and terminal diseases. Burzynski has chosen to position himself with this particularly odious group, by selling, at vast cost, treatments that neither he nor anyone else can prove to be effective. So either he is selling a worthless treatment to desperate people at extortionate cost, or he has a genuine cure for cancer which he is exploiting for personal profit and not sharing with the world through the medium of scientific publication. The former is massively more likely, but neither makes him look good.

      • ninja noob

        the scientific method tries so hard to remove the observer from the equation. Science needs to move past that, we have yet to explore the potential of our own minds and bodies and their effect on the outcomes of experiments. Science may be sound in many ways, but it is also a sort of new religion, a tool for control. Fighting the government or any of its offices is going to take time, money and energy. Energy that could be spent proving the cure and convincing the skeptics.

        • http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk Guy Chapman

          Removing the observer from the equation does not preclude exploring the power of the mind and the body’s own healing processes. All it does is remove confirmation bias. Sadly, in Burzynski’s case, confirmation bias seems to be all he has.

      • Zachman24

        Well WE ALL KNOW that the FDA is being paid off by pharmaceutical companies to suppress actual cures because who can make money off cancer if you cure it??? And from what I’ve seen from multiple sources his patients swear up and down his treatment works and yet the government keeps trying to shut him down when he has plenty of supporters backing him up usually begging the gov’t to allow him to keep healing them but the gov’t doesn’t want to cure cancer, its a billion dollar industry! More money to be made from the sick and dying than from the healthy individuals who don’t require anything but nutritious food to stay healthy. There are plenty cures for cancer! Some are very simple and I’ve seen them work, but you won’t hear the FDA ever back any of them up because THEY CAN’T MAKE A BUCK OFF OF THEM! You sure you people aren’t paid to write this disinformation crap???

        • http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk Guy Chapman

          The FDA have allowed Burzynski to register trial after trial without ever publishing results, they have also taken enforcement action against pharmaceutical companies. They are not free of flaws, but they emphatically are not part of some sinister conspiracy to suppress miracle cures. And even if they were, there are so many other actors in the field of cancer, in so many countries, that any such conspiracy would be trivially easy to circumvent.

          • Catalyst

            Reputable medical journals will not publish his finding. I have studied up for over a year on Burzynski and all I can find is that no one really knows the truth. I’m suspicious of anyone who does. I spoke to the NIH and they said, “The reason he has such a high cure rate is that his patients are desperate and out of options and they believe in him.” Nothing wrong with that.

          • http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk Guy Chapman

            Aside from the fact that this is generic conspiracist nonsense, there’s no actual evidence he has even tried. PLOSone does not have any ties to “big pharma” and would publish in a heartbeat if he had good science, but all the evidence from those who have investigated his past claims and publications says that he doesn’t.

          • Artor

            And that he defines “cure” in a way that no reputable researcher will. Basically, anyone who doesn’t die immediately is “cured.”

          • Calypso_1

            His findings are not published because they do not meet the standards required to be considered basic scientific research. Nothing wrong with that.

  • http://twitter.com/PBeatingCancer PeopleBeatingCancer

    I underwent antineoplaston therapy, A2-1, A10 from 11/97-4/99. I have been cancer free ever since. To read my cancer story, from start to finish, go to http://peoplebeatingcancer.org/discuss/david-emerson-diagnosed-multiple-myeloma-394- David Emerson

    • http://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz Bob Blaskiewicz

      Then it is Burzynski’s job to show that your cure was likely caused by ANP. He can do that by publishing a good study. Without that bit of context, your experience is uninterpretable. :(

    • Calypso_1

      I underwent standard chemo and surgery in 94 & have been cancer free ever since.

    • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

      Well that’s cool! Personally I think theres something to it.

  • DeepCough

    Can’t wait for Disinfo to discuss the Gerson Therapy.

    • ninja noob

      ditto

  • Monkey See Monkey Do

    Super high doses of vitamin C cure some cancers, Look it up. Not as profitable as chemo though, damn, there’s always a catch.

    • http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk Guy Chapman

      Well, that’s the claim. The jury is still out. But the idea that the “cancer industry” suppresses it is just plain bullshit – there are many actors in cancer research and they are a heterogeneous group, it is virtually impossible for them to act in concert in that way. Here’s one of them discussing vitamin C: http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2008/08/13/vitamin-c-jab-to-beat-cancer/ – so, as you see, a completely fair and balanced treatment of the subject.

      • http://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz Bob Blaskiewicz

        There is the other problem that by only researching people who pay him, that he will skew his results to a subpopulation of people who are able to pay. That means that his sample will never be representative of “cancer patients as a whole.” Because he’s the worst researcher in the world. :)

  • BeforeTheDawnHealsUs

    I cannot understand how anyone could possibly trust the FDA, given what Monsanto gets away with. There is a documentary called Under Our Skin. The doctors that ‘cure’ get demonized and attacked legally by the establishment. It is not hard to believe that people (pig f&^ks) have a vested interest in keeping other people sick and dumb. This article must be written by someone who has vested interest in keeping Cancer and other diseases thriving. Who was that guy that started washing his hands between surgeries? That doctor that got ostracised and whom died a slow lonely death in an insane asylum, only to be proven correct post mortem. Semmelweis.
    How do you suppose Burzynski has survived relentless legal actions for 30 years? He has been smart enough to keep his alternative treatment in legal limbo, in order to protect it from pig f$&ks.

    • http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk Guy Chapman

      Partly right. He has abused the legal system (i.e. by opting for jury trial, knowing that juries can be emotionally manipulated) in order to skirt round the inescapable fact that there is absolutely no credible evidence that his treatment works.

      He did succeed in pressing some government bodies to investigate it about 20 years ago, the results were underwhelming. His case reports were found to be inaccurate, his claims for disease progression were unverifiable, and most of the patients died. That’s still the case: skeptics researching the testimonials used to promote the clinic have found a number of “survivors” who are either dead, untraceable, or who seem not to have had the cancers claimed (e.g. the cancer was already surgically removed).

      There is only one way Burzynski can establish credibility and legitimacy, and that’s to fully publish trial results. There are over 60 trials registered, not one of which has been published, not even partially. And remember that people have given consent to these trials, to be experimental subjects, presumably on the basis that the trial outcome will be published. They have paid heavily for the privilege, too. So continuing to withhold trial data is not just a problem for his credibility, it’s a huge ethical issue too. Not that he probably cares, his institutional review board were found to be putting financial incentives ahead of patients already.

      And as an aside, the fact that the FDA continues to allow him to register trials despite never publishing any results is strong evidence that they are not “oppressing” him. In fact, the FDA is treating him exactly as they treat anyone who makes unproven claims to treat disease – if anything they are unduly lenient towards him.

  • geminihigh

    If the guy was a total charlatan the FDA would have successfully shut him down already with little problem. They have tried and tried, time and time again, but to no avail. His supporters are supporters for a reason; they or a a family member used his treatment, and it worked for them where others had failed. I think thats what really irritates the medical community, ethics questions aside. How dare the families of the suffering trust this quack, and not us? This is an ego issue that plagues many in involved in medicine, though its never addressed in house. Other researchers have tried to pass off his research as their own, which indicates that something he stumbled on was worth stealing. That all being said, any doctor can look like an underdog hero if going up against the FDA, possibly the most arrogant, amoral group of health policy officials ever assembled. They don’t even bother trying to hide their most damning internal memos that have pretty much boasted “we don’t give a rat’s ass about consumer/patient safety, its all about maintaining the status quo in the industry.”

    • http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk Guy Chapman

      Not really, no. The FDA allow all sorts of charlatans to practise (homeopaths, chiropractors and so on). They only shut people down when they break the law. We’ll have to see what happens in response to last month’s enforcement letter, I guess, but the FDA seem to me to be giving Burzynski the benefit of what little doubt remains.

  • Bluebird_of_Fastidiousness

    Peer-Review This.

    Objective Skepticism that.
    Murder by Another Name?
    Or Primary Research Without Controls.

    Tell Me Something.
    If Proof Requires CONTROLS,
    As per the Scientific Method,
    What Shall We Call Those Who Receive No Treatment?

    • http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk Guy Chapman

      This is indeed one of the problems with clinical trials where an established effective treatment exists. It is addressed in the design of phase 2 trials. As soon as Burzynski publishes some of the 60 trials he has registered, and for which he is currently charging patients, we will know.

    • http://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz Bob Blaskiewicz

      In this case, I suspect that the “control” would be the “standard of care,” not “untreated.” The determination would be how the ANP performs compared to the standard of care.

      • Bluebird_of_Fastidiousness

        A proper study would be double, or triple blind and have placebos; with human clones in cohorts, preferably inoculated with the same strain of the disease. Damn Ethics!

  • http://twitter.com/PBeatingCancer PeopleBeatingCancer

    To those who criticize Burzinski and antineoplaston therapy, do you have
    any personal experience? I was dx’ed with multiple myeloma 2/94,
    underwent several years of conventional therapies including a peripheral
    blood stem cell transplant, relapsed twice and was told that “nothing
    more can be done for you.” I began ANP 11/97, achieved complete
    remission by 4/99 and have remained cancer free ever since.

    http://peoplebeatingcancer.org/discuss/david-emerson-diagnosed-multiple-myeloma-394

    • http://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz Bob Blaskiewicz

      I’m very, very glad that you are alive. It is Burzynski’s job to demonstrate to his peers that he can do what he says he can. Like I was trying to say, no anecdote is adequate for something which I’m sure you agree would be the most important medical proclamation since…ever. And he should break his butt trying to publish according to the standards of research. No one data point is very revealing.

  • Yucca

    Thank you for this. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15726810. If there was a conspiracy with conventional medicine to profiteer, then I would love to know why we are told not to smoke, wear sunscreen, etc. I guess the healthcare industry don’t provide colonoscopies, mammograms, prostate exams, etc. My doctor just told me to start smoking and take a vacation to Fukushima he’s in it for the profit… :)

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=695780922 Yucca Nel-Cancertainly

    I have brain cancer. I was dignosed with an AA in 2010 (Anaplastic Astrocytoma. Burzynski seems to prey of brain cancer in kids. Statistics for brain cancer are horrifically grim http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15726810 second only to pancreatic cancer which is almost unheard of in kids. In 100 years there have only been 3 medications approved for brain cancer (s). What people don’t understand with brain cancer is that unlike other cancer(s), it remains difficult to treat to due to a blood-brain barrier that makes it difficult for medicine to reach the brain. This coupled with the statistics of 1 in 100 000 people getting it (compared to 1 in 10 woman getting breast cancer) means that there are fewer people to try new medications on in addition to it taking years to develop a cure.

    There is no cancer with a “silver bullet” instant cure, but the link I posted says that statistics continue to improve for most (but not brain) cancer(s). Brain cancer remains underfunded and I have seen people raise hundreds of thousands in GBP that could have gone to reseach, but went to Burzynski and failed. The legacy they leave behind to future sufferers is IMHO greed for deviating funds and awareness to where it is not needed. If you are reading this and have brain cancer, I gather links here: http://pinterest.com/yuccanel/brain-cancer-awareness-news/ There is major potential in cannabis derived medicines and I have posted numerous links that can be found on my pinterest board

  • TimBolen

    Cutting-Edge Cancer Doctor Stanislaw Burzynski Batters
    Texas Medical Board….

    They drop all charges…

    Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

    Tuesday, November 20th, 2012

    There was a day in Texas when sleaze artist Stephen
    Barrett could call up the Executive Director of the Texas Medical Board and
    “arrange” a prosecution of a Texas cutting-edge doctor, even offering
    his even sleazier “skeptic” companion bobbie baratz as the do-all,
    be-all, expert witness against that doctor. Those days are over.
    The Texas Medical Board is on a short leash, after an assault by the Texas
    legislature, at the request of components of the US Health Freedom Movement.

    As you can see below, from an excerpt of an email sent to
    me by Burzynski’s attorney, Rick Jaffee, the Board decided it had other things
    to do, rather than continue to be mauled by Burzynski’s network.

    To read the entire article click on http://www.bolenreport.com
    or http://www.bolenreport.com/feature_articles/Burzynski%20Batters%20Texas%20Medical%20Board.htm

    Tim Bolen
    http://www.bolenreport.com

    • http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk Guy Chapman

      Oh of course, all evil must be laid at the door of your nemesis Barrett.

      Meanwhile, back in the real world, Burzynski has been served with an FDA enforcement notice forbidding him form promoting his investigational drugs as safe and effective, and using patient testimonials; his sixty phase 2 trials remain unpublished; his phase 3 trial has yet to recruit a single patient; and he is still charging hundreds of thousands of dollars for a treatment which independent observers including the NIC, NCI, CRUK and many others uniformly note is both unproven and implausible.

  • Carl

    I have a dear friend that is going to dr “B” for treatment of his prostrate. I have spent many hours reviewing as many claims, comments from lay and professional individuals, and am astonished that there is not one group or agency that has put this imposter out of circulation.

  • Ruth

    All these people that have come forward publicly to announce how they have been cured by this doctor (and others) is good enough for me. So save it for your supporters! Burzynski may become a wealthy man because of it, but what would happen to the medical enterprise if it was approved world wide? Cancer is a money-making disease. What would happen to our economy (which is already in shambles) if Burzynski wasn’t a quack afterall??? Have you asked yourself the question what’s to loose and what’s to gain here????????? I find it appalling that you told your friend to let her child die, that there was NO cure for her son. Are you God?

  • Doug Fontenot

    My grandfather died of cancer in the 30s. He had the means to pursue the best treatment and was an objective believer in the medical establishment. The treatment provided? Radiation, Chemo and removal!!! Now, in our age, what is mainstream cancer treatment pushing? Radiation, chemo and removal!!! I have a problem with the FDA trying to make synthetic, marketable medicine from natural elements and burrying it if it canot be done. That being said, I hate and despise quackery at any level, whether by individuals with empty promises or government agencies pushing drugs through our society to achieve a social agenda. Treatment today is based upon radiation (which we know to be a cause of cancer and which weakens our immune system) and chemotherapy (which we know poisons the healthy body and also weakens our immune system). Then, there’s surgery. Finally, evidence of seeding the body with loosened cancer cells from surgery is beginning to be admitted by main stream medicine. I don’t have a dog in this fight; however, I am a former federal investigator AND a taxpayer who has seen corruption at it’s finest. This doctor has practiced for over 30 years, has been attacked by the state medical board, the FDA and by the cancer-treatment-profitting world in general; yet, he has beaten the cases in court and practices his treatments today. I am truly confused and have a problem making balance of whether this is due to an inferior court system (which I already know we blindly fund and rely upon) or whether a dying monster of failed traditional medicine is simply calling in all favors to remain intact and afloat (and profitable) as long as possible. Do we remember our history? I canot help but compare this to the federal government’s attack upon Howard Hughes when he dared to buck the status quo.

  • http://twitter.com/HealthySol4U Healthy Solutions

    What are you talking about?! Have you ever seen the documentary “Burzynski”? It is quite a fascinating story that that is backed up by meticulous documentation(Available Online) and a wall of evidence supporting the good doctor and proving the criminality of his main detractors. This man has helped countless people who would have other wise perished. There is documented scientific proof of this fact! I don’t know where you are getting your information from but you are really barking up the wrong tree here….

    There is not a “cure” for cancer. Let’s get that straight right now. However there is documented evidence that this Doctor has put many people in his care into long term and continued remission with no detectable traces of cancer. These were patients with brain cancers that were 100% fatal and incurable at the time. All you have to do is watch the documentary and go online and look at the documented evidence of all of this. I don’t know why this is so hard to understand…

    • sleat

      It looks as if Burzynski has made some progress since Bob wrote this post. I wonder if Bob’s opinion of Burzynski, and his apparent need to debunk any claims to efficacy, and polite refusal to look at any of the positive outcomes objectively will change when he sees that Burzynski has “cut a deal” with big pharma to use their products in his gene-targetted therapy? Will Bob suddenly flip-flop and support Burzynski as soon as the FDA does? Does Bob realize that the very technology that Burzynski, and only Burzinski has developed has been the subject of US government patents which were filed AFTER the technical discovery phase of his first few FDA fights? Why would they do that if, as Bob asserts, the Burzynski treatment technology is a scam, and quackery?

      A good experiment to further figure Bob out might be to get another topic on which the official line is sure to change drastically with time, (political expediency makes for some epic flipflops!) and get Bob’s take on it. My bet is that Bob’s opinion, and thrust of argument will track the official line as it changes. He can easily excuse that with “well, more information has come to light, which I didn’t have at that time, so my opinion has obviously changed”.

      Oh, and as far as Bob’s professional details are concerned, he’s basically a writing professor, and a high-calibre one at that. Post Doc English Fellowship!

      He’s apparently not a physicist, biologist, or scientist. For this reason, trying to debate him on physics, biology, or any other hard science is probably a fool’s errand, as he could always use “I’m sorry, I’m no scientist” as a magic shield to thwart any competent attack on the hard-science front.

      I wouldn’t be surprised if future White House Press Secretaries and Presidential Speech writers are sought from the rolls of his alumni, as the current batch of WH staffers aren’t cutting it. In other words, Bob is a professional convincer teacher. One writing course he teaches is based on “Extraordinary Claims”.

      One need only pick a random recent WH press conference to get an extraordinary claim to process using Bob’s formula. An example of an extraordinary claim might be that it’s merely a coincidence that a terrorism drill accompanied the Boston Bombing, and by gum, if anybody could pull of spinning that as truthful, he could! Another might be that the military team near Benghazi was stood-down for completely sensible reasons, or that there’s a really good reason why Building 7 fell down vertically at almost 9.8m/s^2 from nothing but fire, and that Silverstein’s “we decided to pull it” comment had nothing to do with building demolition. Or that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction which vanished as soon as troops arrived, or that Iran has been steadily building a nuclear weapon for the past thirty or so years (yes, breathless claims of imminent Iranian nukery have been going on that long) without success.

      So, basically, if there’s any whiff of conspiracy, past behaviour shows he’ll square off on the “anti-conspiracy” side, every time, even when THAT position requires belief in a competing conspiracy theory.

      I hope he teaches his students well!

  • Senator

    It always amazing me that people refuse to look at the facts. They do no investigation or only investigate one side of the story yet make it appear as if they do. The reality is that he now in government sponsored trials proving he is right and the results are more than impressive. There are a number of people with far better credentials who endorse him. How could that be?

    It does not matter what you think – it is what is proven. Everyone is trying to stop him from proving it. This battle has been ongoing for 30 years and finally something is being done.

    The results are enough that one has to ask why anyone would not want to know the truth and do these studies and allow the research so that a determination can be made as to the effectiveness of the treatment.

    It is very simple really – kill a person with treatment – as is the existing way of doing it or let them die – are the only two things in modern sciences bag of tricks. When you take a brain stem cancer patient and tell them that they will die but they can live for 18 months more – but they will be deaf, their body will be so toxic that they will surely die in the end – after 18 months of the most inhuman suffering our nightmares can conjure up with a one percent chance of perhaps living as an invalid for 5 years.. That is the preferred treatment in your mind. An alternative treatment that only works 25% of the time with full recovery is quackery? That the 75% of those that were treated were somehow mistreated or robbed of a 1% hope. – YOU ARE INSANE.

    This is not a guy selling hope knowing there isn’t hope.

  • Believe

    You people are all cynics. Shame on you. He is a brilliant man. Why don’t you get your facts square before you go spouting off about a topic you CLEARLY know NOTHING about!

  • Doug Fontenot

    The doctor and antineoplaston therapy are victims of a shameful witch hunt. If people stop listening to the rants of hypnotized sheeple mentally infiltrated by big pharma and the FDA, they will learn that the FDA began granting research money to antineoplaston therapy ONLY after a colleague left the Burzynski clinic and partnered up with a former FDA official who knew the potential that Bruzynski pioneered. Burzenski defeated every attempt over years of law suits by our “established” cancer treatment centers and the FDA (a 200 billion dollar per year industry). Quite simply, he filled the courtrooms with former “hopeless” cancer patients who were cured by Burzynski while his accusers were left speechless with no recourse except to give up legal means of attack and to resort to using a gullible and uninformed public hysteria to attack his work. For generations, we’ve had three options: Chemotherapy, surgery and radiation; none of which actually work to any greater degree than antineoplaston therapy and each of which only delay death. The international community laughs at America’s approach to cancer treatment. It was recently broacasted that America’s shameful big business approach to cancer treatment has left us far behind the rest of the world in cancer treatment advancement. Watch the Burzynski movie: Cancer Is Serious Business.

  • Rosemarie johnson

    Hello great and kind heart of the world with the problem of cancer, My name is Lurther Davis, God has been so amazing in my family life since we me and started using Doctor Henderson Hemp Oil.
    My Son who is 19 years old who was diagnosed with Cancer of the lung and the cancer was in it final stage when we heard about Doctor Henderson Hemp Oil and we where lucky to contact him via email: hendersonmedicalservice@gmail.com and I bought his Medical Hemp Oil, which my son started using as his treatment for his lungs cancer. It now 3 months and my son is done with treatment. My son didn’t die, instead he is living in healthy condition with his lungs cancer totally gone, but still taking his prevention. Doctor Henderson, God will give you prosperity in all your endeavor in life. You shall be blessed abundantly. You gave my family a new meaning in life. Thank you Doctor Henderson. for those that believe that they will die, please contact Doctor Henderson on: hendersonmedicalservice@gmail.com and have all cancer of all types cure and gone forever. have your life, love, family back with Doctor Henderson Hemp Oil.
    Thank God for you Doctor Henderson. hendersonmedicalservice@gmail.com
    From the Bottom of my heart and on behalf of my family we say a Huge Thank you.

  • Jujubecool1999

    This article is crap. People have fought to discredit Burzynski for years and have not been able to. They’ve taken him to court and called him a quack and failed. And that’s because he helps save lives. If you don’t believe in his techniques don’t promote them. People have the right to choose who treats them and what kind of treatment they get. I don’t believe in what you call “modern medicine” because i’ve seen your “modern medicine” kills more people than alternative medicine. How many drugs do you see pushed by pharmaceutical companies and a few years later there are huge lawsuits because they killed and maimed hundreds of people. Big medicine is a joke, it’s big business…and it is ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. Luckily people are starting to wake up and look for natural alternatives instead of buying into the pharma hype.

  • http://www.facebook.com/andybev1 Andy Beveridge

    TIt seems that the Texas medical board, forced by the FDA could not stop this guy because he DOES cure cancers – he was given all of the ‘no hoper’ cases and he cured over 25% of over 100 patients, to the usual 0% (after five years) that the usual treatment gives. So don’t talk crap. This guy has not been given any money from the govt. and does a great job despite
    idiots like yourself.

  • http://www.facebook.com/andybev1 Andy Beveridge

    why has my post in favour of dr burzynsky been removed…..

  • http://www.facebook.com/andybev1 Andy Beveridge

    well my messages of support for the DR keeps getting removed – disinfo indeed!

  • http://www.facebook.com/jake.boe.5 Jake Boe

    sounds like you make money off killing people bob and you don’t want a cure

  • http://marymicrogram.blogspot.com/ Hux Leary McShulgin

    Whatever happened to “first do no harm”?

    Mainstream medical treatments for cancer are outdated and notoriously toxic. When they offer no hope of cure and only guarantee additional suffering, patients should have the right to choose other options.

    I have no clue whether Burzynski is a quack or not, but the FDA’s shady practices must be called into question here. Burzynski was taken to court FOUR times by the FDA without indictment, each time on the taxpayer’s dime.

    There is a revolving door between Big Pharma and the FDA that needs exposing. Many potential treatments (like the nontoxic liver disease drug Omegaven) are being blocked for no good reason, leading to unnecessary death. The environmental causes of diseases like breast cancer are downplayed due to conflict of interest between big business and organizations like Susan G. Komen. Meanwhile, people are dying while others profit off their illness. It’s not a giant conspiracy but a far-reaching attitude of profits over people that is shamefully common in America.

    To those asking why Burzynski hasn’t won a Nobel Prize for his work, I pose the
    opposite question: why hasn’t he lost his medical license and been imprisoned
    for fraudulent practices? Doctors lose their licenses daily for much less.

  • http://cory.albrecht.name/ Cory Albrecht

    The new stuff from the FDA reports is especially damning.

21