In October this year, an organisation calling itself The Cambridge Institute of Complementary Health is hosting a conference on “cutting edge and innovative ways of treating cancer”. The keynote speaker is Dr Stanislaw Burzynski from the Burzynski Institute in Texas.
Burzynski is a controversial character. He has been regularly appearing in local and national newspapers and TV in the UK as families with desperately sick children try to raise hundreds of thousands of pounds to send them to the US and try his antineoplaston cancer therapy.
Except that, after 30 years of selling this ‘pioneering’ treatment Dr Burzynski has failed to produce any convincing evidence that it works. Indeed, an analysis of what he is actually doing by an oncologist suggests that, at best, he is selling orphaned chemotherapy drugs at hugely inflated prices, and offering an incoherent version of gene targeted chemotherapy.
Burzynski is not allowed to treat patients with his wonder drug unless they are enrolled in trials. And that is what he does: enrols them on trials,charges the parents hundreds of thousands for the privilege of being his test subjects, and then fails to publish the results.
And when he is criticised, he hires thugs to try to shut people up.
He is also faces a court case in the US from an ex-patient. And the Medical Board of Texas plan to hold a hearing into his conduct next month.
So, it is fair to say, that in coming to the UK to promote his cures to the families of children with incurable cancers, he is likely to meet some opposition.
The conference is being held at the National Motorcycle Museum Conference Centre in Birmingham. An odd choice. But the choice of other speakers is odd too varying from the obviously nonsensical to the plausible and respectable looking.
The first speaker is Patricia Peat who is a nurse who runs and works with a number of charities, such as Yes to Life that promote unproven, disproven superstitious and pseudoscientific cancer treatments. You might want to read about the experience of one person who took on board Ms Peat’s services on the Would you kick a dying man? blog.
We then have Miss Louise Dickinson from University College London Hospitals who will talk about “High Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU) in the treatment of localised prostate cancer”. HIFU does indeed appear to be plausible in its mode of operation. Except that a recent review of the evidence published last year suggests that the evidence for this treatment is of ‘low quality’ and that this “render[s] it difficult to draw conclusions about its efficacy.” NICE does not recommend it unless it is as part of a trial.
There is a “Prof Tim Oliver from St Bartholomew’s and the Royal London Hospital” who has been conducting a ten person trial into ‘nutritional cancer therapies’. Apparently, the NHS would not fund the trial and so vitamin pill peddlers, ‘The Really Healthy Company’ have donated all the supplements for free.
Mr Bill Bradford, from Meditherm, will talk about the their breast screening equipment and techniques: Digital Infrared Thermal Imaging. The FDA does not approve this technique for primary breast screening. There is evidence that it might be helpful as an adjunct to mammography when a problem is already indicated. However, Bill appears to suggest that its use may go beyond that.
We have also Dr Steve Hickey who will talk about using high doses of vitamin C to treat cancer. This is an old idea that has failed to demonstrate its usefulness. In an interview, Dr Hickey, who has a PhD in Medical Biophysics, is stated to work as “Head of Technology for a company in Manchester Science Park and a member of the Biology Department of Manchester Metropolitan University”. MMU does not list a Dr Hickey on its staff pages, so I am unable to find out more about him. However, he has written a book called Tarnished Gold: The Sickness of Evidence-based Medicine where he tries to argue that evidence-based medicine is bad for your health. It is not clear if in his talk he will be using something other than scientific evidence to suggest vitamin C can treat cancer.
Which brings us to the organisers of the conference, The Cambridge Institute of Complementary Health. The Institute does not appear to be an academic body, but a training organisation for people doing something called Chirokinetic Therapy, Vertical Reflexology (VRT) and Advanced Aromatherapy. We shall be hearing talks from their staff about Chirokinetic Therapy – “naturopathic methods of helping women to regain and maintain healthy breasts”.
We are told that,
in April of this year, Bill Bradford and David Stevens have begun to collaborate with each other whereby progress of patients with breast disease being treated by David can be monitored safely using thermal imaging by Bill.
So, a questionable diagnostic technique will be used alongside Chirokinetic Therapy – which is a dubious reinvention of ‘muscle testing’ – itself a pseudoscientific form of diagnosis and treatment.
Some may have suggested that Dr Burzynski is a quack. It is also possible that he is also just terribly mistaken about his treatments. He could also have hit upon a miraculous cure but for some reason does not want to publish the evidence so that it can be made widely available. But by attending a conference with speakers talking about other questionable practices, he does his reputation no good at all. As I have called for him to do before on this blog, he has a moral obligation to hand over the data from his treatments, to publish, be peer reviewed, and be totally transparent in what he is doing. Anything else is letting down his current and future patients who cannot make a properly informed decision without such disclosure.
What might be interesting here is whether this conference could be classed as promotional for the techniques being talked about. It is not an academic conference – it is open to anyone and appears to be targeting people with cancer to inform them about “measures you can take to help yourself if you have been diagnosed with cancer.”
Advertising cancer treatments to the public is illegal under the Cancer Act of 1939. Even the National Motorcycle Museum Conference Centre may fall foul of this as hosting the promotional event may appear to be ‘taking part’ in the advertisement. Defences are limited to promotions aimed at such groups as registered medical professionals. That would not appear to apply here. It will be interesting to see how Trading Standards interpret what is going on here.
Updates
29th April 2012
It would appear that Dr Burzynski is now too scared to come to the UK to give his talk.
On the website of the Cambridge Institute of Complementary Health we now see the following,
Dr Stanislaw Burzynski has changed his plans and decided to remain in the US for the time being. We are very sorry that, at present, he feels he is unable to come and speak about his excellent work at our convention. Our invitation to him remains open, however, and we hope that circumstances may change and that he may be able to come, after all.
One of the reasons he feels unable to come is so that we won’t be exposed to the sort of attacks that he has suffered.
This convention is an opportunity for us to hear about and debate various approaches to helping people who have cancer and other systemic diseases.
What a great shame that there are people out there who seem to be hell bent on preventing open and honest debate, but instead wish to promulgate stories that are untrue and opinions based on ignorance or dark propaganda.
Of course, I invite CICH to point out anything that I have said that is ” untrue and opinions based on ignorance or dark propaganda”.
Their conference intends to go on. How successful it will be remains to be seen now their ‘big draw’ has cried off. And it is worth reminding them that they may still have issues with the Cancer Act.
Anyway, good news for parents of children with cancer. Burzynski is brave enough to take their money and houses away, and to threaten bloggers and 17 year olds who call him a fraud. But not brave enough to face his critics in the UK.
Simple questions to ask at the end of his presentation….
– How many people have you treated with antineoplastons over the years and how many are still alive?
– Why have you not moved on from early stage trials in 40 years?
Any others?
Jonathan
It looks like a veritable Quackfest. Burzynski will feel right at home.
The FDA is now testing out the ‘quacks’ theories.
The Burzynski issue is some 30-year long running now. I only recently came across this but I felt the information should be dragged out. If someone claims to be able to treat cancer, then that is to the credit of the human race and must be empirically proven and reproduced. With this in mind, Sara Siegler and myself wrote a report on the Burzynski clinic and currently are attempting to get the FDA to release so much needed clinical trial data by way of the Freedom of Information Act.
You can view the report and request here:
Report: http://t.co/NlLicQKS
FOIA Request: https://t.co/LvfHXgmF
FOIA Letter: https://t.co/q4U5eV46
Follow me on Twitter: @cappsie
Are you implying that Burzynski has already provided the FDA with “proof” of his treatment but the FDA is “suppressing” that data? If that’s the case, why do you imagine they’ll just turn over this highly-suppressed data to you?
As Americans we just don’t understand the evil that exists within the FDA!!! Its all about the MONEY!!
Your comment is around 12 words too long.
Steve Hickey’s book sounds amusing. It could probably do with a few people giving it appropriate reviews on Amazon.
One can look at the beginning pages on Amazon. That provides a bit of an overview of the book’s direction, but not enough to judge it.
How do you sleep at night Dr Burzynski?
Resting on the knowledge that he has and is saving lives instead of killing people with chemo and radiation!!!
People do some research, what is the purpose of chemo?? It can sometimes shrink tumors but it DOES not kill cancer stem cells!! Their own studies will say that plainly!
So when my partner had totally resected non small cell lung cancer did they want to give him cisplatin and vinorelbine?? He has no tumor so what would have been left behind were cancer stem cell.
The research will tell you there is currently NO CHEMO OR RADIATION that affects cancer stem cells!! So isn’t that treatment with NO benefit but plenty of side effects!! Chemo can also cause the cancer to become resistant to treatments and to grow faster!
Side effects kidney damage, leukemia, hearing loss, no infection prevention… and for what? So big PHARMA makes some bucks!!
Wheres the quackary now!!!
on all those piles of comfy dollar bills….
And what about the BILLIONS that are made from chemo and radiation that MAY provide 3 more months, oh yeah you had 3 months to live the chemo gave you 3 more and you spend all of it SICK!
He sleeps very well indeed, I presume, in his $6 million, 15,000 square-foot, 15-room, 15-bathroom house on 10 acres of rolling green estates in Houston’s finest neighbourhood.
The property taxes alone are over $100,000 a year!
Amazing what’s public information these days. I found this on the Houston tax database in about five seconds:
http://www.hcad.org/records/details.asp?crypt=%94%9A%B0%94%BFg%85%8F%88%82jg%8El%88tXtYW%9E%99%A2%D3%89%95%C2e%7CU%8A%7D%86%C0%AB%A8%AD%86%5E&bld=1&tab=
I’m surprised it’s even listed in his own name.
I wonder if patients of his, who sacrifice to pay $100,000 and up, know that their money is being used to keep the guy living in such luxury.
If you look at the front entrance on Google Streetview, you’ll see a nauseatingly-large “SRB” (his initials) welded into the wrought-iron gate. There also appears to be a coat-of-arms on each side of the gate–maybe something to do with the Polish “count” title he bought for himself?
Google Streetview: http://g.co/maps/hhp3c
I can’t wait for this dickwad to lose his license next month.
And how much money are the doc’s getting who poison their patients to feed big drug companies that keep the FDA in business, and who’s stock is sold to politians to keep them on board with “Drug therapy!!
Those gates are taking the piss! Which, I assume, Burzynski will bottle and sell.
I’m amazed that you state that a response to an article should not be anonymous if there are accusations of ignorance or in your opinion something ‘profoundly daft’ is written, yet you choose to make comments others would consider just that under a pseudonym. It would be interesting to know what your back ground is, that you feel able to comment so freely on others differing opinions and objectives.
I recently blogged against the article you have chosen to write about the convention being held on 20/10/12 at the Motor Cycle Museum and thought I would at least pay you the courtesy of knowing that, despite the fact that you did not contact us at cichealth directly but chose to peddle negative misinformation on the speakers and the alleged agenda of this convention.
It seems that unfair, misleading and down right untruths are allowed and that these can be delivered by a person/persons hiding behind a pseudonym.
You can call for information to be removed or seek to have views and opinions squashed, which in turn prevents information and choice being available to the public and still not identify yourself by name to those you accuse.
Clearly according to the 1939 Cancer Act, we are not allowed to say that any therapy can treat a person for cancer or provide a cure, but no one can promise a cure, be it allopathic medicine or a more complementary/naturopathic approach.
Our speakers at the convention have attracted the attention of your most insidious website that calls itself the Quackometer. I have happily given my readers the full route to find your website and comments on the convention, as we at Cichealth have nothing to hide and are more than happy for any reader to view your blatantly biased and narrow minded approach to healthcare.
The convention would welcome the participation of a representative from the Quackometer site if you could offer something constructive to the day. We are open to all views on health.
Interestingly i treat many people with scientific backgrounds and the one thing true scientists are open to is research and an awareness to keep an open mind as that is the only way true progress is made. Many in our history who made great discoveries were at first thought of as foolish, only to be later proved right.
Pity to take such a negative stance which merely suppresses exploration and progress.
Are we to assume that you hold the belief that the people are too stupid to discern a path way for themselves or perhaps seek to further their own knowledge on treatments that are available to support health. That is an Interesting appraisal on people in general then.
Are people not allowed to hear or be allowed to have direct knowledge of or contact with those that are looking at other treatments that may well support healthy tissue? What an opportunity for people to ask the questions needed for discerning the quality of and effectiveness of the supportive treatments that are being developed!
I understand that the 1939 cancer act is thought to act as protection, but who does this law protect now? Is it the public or the interests of the NHS and all that it entails, drug companies and other vested financial interests?
Cancer is a vast industry world wide, So many jobs depend on it and it alone! From those that have specialised in it as a career, the drug companies with there new patents on yet another drug for it, all the way to the huge charity organisations that fund raise for the research and supporting of the sufferers.
I see your recent comments on the Homeopathic industry re revenue, but that really is a ‘drop in the ocean’ compared to that of the cancer industry.
It must bring in the highest amount of money from charity than any other illness and that is because it is an illness with such fear around it. That is a fact that is played on to extract money from the public to help in the research into cancer, yet where are the results for the vast sums that the public so generously poor into it?
As I stated, the cancer act is obviously there to protect the public at vulnerable times, if we are to assume that the public at large can not be objective. Yet there are no laws that say you can not prey on people for their money with such emotive tactics it would seem.
I found it disgusting that while my sister was in hospital on a cancer ward, that one of the cancer charities box came round. For a donation, you could have a daffodil pin or pink ribbon etc etc.
If you are not allowed to inform the public what is available that may help in the treatment of disease, then should it be allowed that money tins are rattled under the noses of those suffering with the very disease you are collecting for or play on the emotions of the relatives at that time?
The answer to the ‘cure’ of cancer is not singular. It could be assumed that it is as different as there are people that contract it.
Is the word ‘cure’ too positive? Aiming for a cure? Far too positive it seems. We are only allowed to aim for remission! Well that’s great! I like to think if I was struck with this problem, I would be aiming for a cure and not a remission, but then there is no money in curing cancer or any disease. Money in ill health but not in health!
We are talking about treating disease, no one knows if the cure will be the result, but we need to keep it realistic but positive or what hope does anyone have.
We need to be able to aim for the best that we can and who knows where that ‘best’ may come from.
Clearly the options open to the majority right now are not working for everyone by any means and very often to the detriment, so let’s see what else there is on offer and have the debate on the effectiveness etc without simply mud throwing in the hope that some sticks.
Who makes the most money in this? Well we don’t need to look beyond drug companies for the answer to that and we all know how desperate they can be.
Great play is made of the money that the so called ‘alternative’ treatments charge, but is that true? I know many excellent therapists that most certainly do not charge excessively for their skills and very often in treating cancer either charge less or give their time voluntarily.
For many the developments of treatments are funded from their own pockets, so of course a fee has to be charged. Nothing is free, not even the NHS!
I don’t think drug companies are handing over free drugs or oncologists not taking their salaries.
In life we should be allowed to be informed of what ever is available and as long as nothing is deemed as a cure then let the information be out there and debated/discussed and questioned by the public.
I just happen to believe that we the people are not silly and can be informed of things and then make considered judgements. Better to know what may be available and how it may benefit before a problem in the health arises, they may even discover how to prevent illness such as potentially serious ones in the first place.
Why is cancer so different to other ills in terms of the law. Perhaps its because the NHS make it so fear based that they themselves make the sufferer vulnerable rather than empowered. It is easier to get a patient to comply if they are coming from a base of fear rather than one of taking control.
It does seem that people are denied choice under this act though, as how would your everyday person in the street know what is out there if other methods are not allowed to be given an opportunity to be heard
Cichealth make no claim that any of the treatments being discussed are a cure for treating any person for cancer as the act states, neither do we say they are a cure in themselves.
It is an opportunity to hear and debate the treatments and nothing more.
That must surely be allowed in a country that prides itself on free speech and education.
The speakers are of the highest calibre and all professionals, so lets respect that and give all the opportunity to hear views. Surely you trust people to be able to decide for themselves if given the information?
I have looked at what you have said about our speakers and have replied to that in my blog. Again I have urged people to view your writings on them and consider how easy it is to draw suspicion on to people that simply isn’t there by what you might consider ‘clever writing’
Members of the public are far from stupid and can see through such tricks in the way things can be portrayed.
We are more open to hear the views of those that may differ from our speakers and do not feel the need to decry them and happy to let the people decide for themselves
Beyond this, I am not entering into any debate, as those that read your website are hardly those that will want to attend anyway. Best advice a solicitor gave me!
“It seems that unfair, misleading and down right untruths are allowed and that these can be delivered by a person/persons hiding behind a pseudonym.”
Could you be more specific? Who is using a pseudonym? Who is writing unfair, misleading untruths and what are they specifically?
I also second Ian M’s suggestion that you read the Cancer Act properly.
Sarah, i won’t address all of your points as others already have. Your reply on the Quackometer site started quite admirably and i appreciated your sensible style of writing whilst obviously staying true to your beliefs. Then it descended into conspiracy theories about ‘Big Pharma’ so to speak, drugs companies making money etc, and I was suitably aggravated that your once sensible and well structured reply had turned into something, which sadly may attract ridicule from some.
1.I would like to query/address a few of your points
1. ‘Interestingly i treat many people with scientific backgrounds and the one thing true scientists are open to is research and an awareness to keep an open mind as that is the only way true progress is made. Many in our history who made great discoveries were at first thought of as foolish, only to be later proved right’
Absolutely, as a scientist i like to think i have an open mind and i have done a lot of reading of both scientific publications and mainstream books regarding various claims of ‘natural therapy’. It is a fascinating field no doubt, sadly littered by a lot of people wanting to make money out of ‘treatments’ for which they have no proof. This does not mean there are not diamonds in the rough, i agree. However, when all of these ‘pioneers’ who were originally doubted and ridiculed about their ideas were around, the scientific method was far less developed than it was now. There was no or limited peer review, and limited communication between scientists, due essentially to lack of phones and email. Communication is the key to bringing other people round to your scientific hypotheses/theories, and this is now instantaneous with any person, anywhere in the world. My point is the process of proving your treatments work with evidence based medicine is now easy…if your treatments do indeed work. And as a side note, I can speak for most cancer research scientists here: If cancer was ‘cured’ tomorrow, I would happily give my job up and go and work somewhere else. Those of us who work for charities/in academia get paid peanuts for the level of education we have to attain – we could not give a damn about the ridiculous ‘conspiracy of cancer being an industry’.
‘If you are not allowed to inform the public what is available that may help in the treatment of disease, then should it be allowed that money tins are rattled under the noses of those suffering with the very disease you are collecting for or play on the emotions of the relatives at that time?’
The big difference between these two situations you state is thus: ‘Unproven treatments’ whether natural or standard, but just unproven…are marketed on the fact that they may benefit the patient themselves, at that time where they are parting with their money. Most patients will be aware when giving money to a cancer research charity – that £1 they put in the box, is not going to help them – its going to help others to not go through what they are currently going through. Its more a selfless act, which yes may make people feel more empowered. I also strongly challenge your notion that current fundraising etc makes cancer patients feel ‘vunerable’ – have you seen the thousands of women (many cancer survivors) running the race for life?
‘It must bring in the highest amount of money from charity than any other illness and that is because it is an illness with such fear around it. That is a fact that is played on to extract money from the public to help in the research into cancer, yet where are the results for the vast sums that the public so generously poor into it?’
Where are the results? Are you serious? Well, as a 15 year survivor of childhood cancer, im sitting right here. Had I been born in the sixties or seventies instead of the eighties: I wouldn’t be here right now. Yes, different cancers are being ‘cured’/successfully treated at vastly different rates, some still have huge levels of mortality and its completely unacceptable – hence the need for continued research. However, in the 1950’s/1960’s pretty much everyone died of any type of cancer. Now the five year EFS (I dislike this term as much as you I guarantee it…) is over 50%. Its still crap, yes, we can’t save everyone, but we are trying our hardest to make it better.
Sarah: I do have one question for you if you will entertain it. I have no particular issues with any other speakers at your conference – many of them practise what I would describe ‘alternative medicine’ with no scientific basis…i.e. alkaline diet, but actually a few who appear to be legitimate scientists. Infact I have met one of them and had a good chat with him, he is in a similar field to me. I am a little surprised he has agreed to speak at the conference considering many of the other speakers do not appear to support the evidence-based medicine route, but will see him again in July and have a chat with him regarding it. As for the other speakers – well, each to their own, if cancer patients wish to follow an ‘alkaline diet’ during treatment, that’s up to them.
HOWEVER (my apologies for tangenting) you claim on your website about Dr. Burzynski:
‘from the Burzynski Institute, Houston, Texas, who will talk about his use of antineoplastons, which act as tumour suppressors. The FDA have given Dr Burzynski a license to synthesise these chemicals in his laboratory in Houston and they have shown some outstanding results. First used in the treatment of inoperable brain tumours in newborns, they are now used to treat other cancers as well with no harmful side effects.’
1. Are you willing to actually state on your website that his drugs act as tumour supressors, when there are no scientific studies supporting this fact (by him or anyone else).
2. Outstanding results is a subjective statement, which you do not backup in your blurb (aka. Curing 99% of glioma patients)…untrue by the way.
3. My biggest gripe. ‘No harmful side effects’. This is simply not true at all, and I believe if you leave this text on, you are highly highly irresponsible. The toxicity of antineoplastons has been linked to toxicity-linked fatalities by an FDA report.
You can find the information summarised here: http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1998_3051685
The FDA noted that hypernatremia, or an excess of sodium in the blood, was a toxicity noted in 65 percent of the 404 patients participating in a study and it that it may have contributed to the deaths of at least seven patients.
Hypernatremia means serious water depletion, leading to central nervous system problems, coma and even death.
Regardless of whether his treatments work or not –it is incorrect to say ‘No harmful side effects’ particularly in newborns. Reports of death by kidney failure in children have been seen in his patients and the only reason we don’t know how many…is because he has so few publications.
I rest my case.
I think Sarah might want to reread the Cancer Act and then check back to her blog post from September last year http://the-well-woman.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/cancer-convention-how-its-progressing.html
It’s clear that the conference is solely to promote unproven cancer treatments and therapies that will cure without the nasty side effects of current treatment regimes (the main side effect presumably being that you stand a chance of surviving cancer).
Hi Sarah,
Andy believes that “Those with cancer are not in a position to be good consumers of health care choices. Informed consent and measured choice is difficult to achieve when the overbearing pressure of imminent death looms. The allure of another chance, no matter how slim, will always drive towards the futile”.
I have tried to explain to him, that because I was diagnosed with stage 3 cancer last April, I did not become gullible and vulnerable over night. He thinks because I am a chiropractor, I am unable to evaluate health claims even though I have put my masters in Health Promotion as evidence of some knowledge of clinical science, however Andy does not recognise the Brunell qualification on the basis my entry onto the course was a BSc in chiropractic, validated by Portsmouth Uni, and mostly taught my medically trained people. Andy refuse to divulge which academic institution has given him his unique insight into, academic standards and clinical science, which is a very limited version of what David Sackett described as Evidence Based Medicine.
I have had chemo, radiation, surgery and now six months of chemo, I am very satisfied with the medical care I have had, I have also done many other things on my journey back to health, I will not leave any stone unturned and do not care about the cost, no point in stuffing my pockets with money if I am in a coffin. Skeptics seem obsessed with people spending their money on CAM, because of lack of evidence yet never mention the spend on antidepressants or drugs like Vioxx or consider how research is funded. I would love if chiropractic had some big multinationals willing to fund research for us. Would we have to use their products in return, I wonder?
Unfortunately Andy had difficulty seeing beyond the CAM part of me living with cancer, announcing last April on Twitter, that Richard Lanigan was treating his cancer with chiropractic? To be fair to Andy, he does not remember this tweet from the thousands he did last year, so he obviously did not give it much thought when he made it.
I have no doubt cancer consumers get ripped off as to consumers in all aspects of life. However the skeptic finger is pointed exclusively at CAM, Kingston Hospital offers Aromatherapy and Acupuncture to cancer patients, Royal Marsden Sutton offers reflexology. Skeptics advise against this approach on the basis of a lack of published evidence of “cure”, however clinicians with experience are focusing on quality of life as much as cure and may recommend such interventions. Which raises an interesting question, if medical people are recommending treatments and skeptics are offering contrary advice without any medical qualifications, are they not themselves engaging in the practice of quackery.
“However the skeptic finger is pointed exclusively at CAM, Kingston Hospital offers Aromatherapy and Acupuncture to cancer patients, Royal Marsden Sutton offers reflexology”.
Should these things be even suggested as aiding cancer patients? Some would say ‘yes’ some would say ‘no’. Should rubbing a cheese and onion flavour crisp packet on the end of your nose be offered to cancer sufferes? Quite clearly not. It’s nonsense and would be a waste of everyone’s time and money and would lead to confusion amongst patients who would think ‘Well surely this must work otherwise I wouldn’t be offered it’.
The trouble is, at what point do we have to look at evidence of effect and decide what treatment is a nasal crisp packet and what is a functional treatment.
Richard, I understand Daniel David Palmer, the magnetic healer and mystic who invented chiropractic, had no medical qualifications. He challenged medical wisdom of the time. Does that mean he engaged in the practice of quackery?
http://www.blogger.com/profile/13386722365773563659
“Favourite Books Anything by Deepak Chopra”
Bzzzt…Fail!
Sorry, love, but if you can’t spot Deepak Chopra’s output for the utter bollocks that it so obviously is then you have lost any right to comment on this topic.
“all professionals, so lets respect that”
My house and garden shed have each been burgled in the last few years. Each was done by a “professional”. I have chosen not to respect that.
Nor do I respect those “professionals” who exploit the sick with false hope from quack therapies.
You suffer from a common current malady of finding yourself incapable of making a judgement based on sound evidence and logic. It is not open-minded to continue to hold that all such things are possibly true. It’s simply lazy and stupid.
There is a theme running in our culture at the moment that defending free-speech is the same as accepting that all opinions are equally valid. Welcome, Sarah, to somewhere where shit is accurately distinguished from Shinola.
Come on, what hope does conventional therapy offer?? do you know that many medical oncologist would never prescribe the same protocol for family or friends that they do for their patients!!
What does that say for the doctors that are using chemo?
My most important point here is this, I may not want the same therapies you would choose and you wouldn’t want mine, but we should all have a choice to pick what we believe in! Someone may say, Dr. Burzynski’s has these low risk side effects and not like that option but there are others of us who would say Chemo and radiation side effects could kill me instead of the cancer, I don’t want that! What does it do for you to use your energy toward something that has nothing to do with you, but could be saving someone elses??!!
What do you think might happen between now and October if Burzynski loses his license next week in Texas? Will he subsequently be “discredited” and uninvited to the motorcycle museum?
Or will his supporters double down and overlook that, making him a hero, a martyr, a la Wakefield?
Can he legally still be called “Doctor” if he does lose his license? Or is someone always a doctor once they’ve earned their medical degree? (I’m not talking about his “may-be-bogus” PhD…)
THIS is interesting…if you go to the CICH website (yeah, I know, just hold your nose) and look at the page for the motorcycle quack show, all references to Burzynski are gone. Guess even the quacks at the CICH (yeah that means you Sarah!) have a bit of judgement to distance themselves from Dr. Stan.
If you click on Andy’s link above to the CICH, you’ll see that Burzynski is billed as the star of the motorcycle show. Then hit refresh, and *poof* magically, Dr. Stan is gone.
Wish he’d disappear this easily in real life.
Sorry, rather hit refrssh just hit the “Cancer Convention” tab at the top of the page and you’ll see the new, Burzynski-less version of the motorcycle show line-up.
Also interesting is that the “Topics” section has been re-written slightly…to comply with Sarah’s much-hated Cancer Act, perhaps?
Funny how Dr. Stan is too controversial even for ear-candlers.
Or, maybe they won’t advertise him but he’ll make a “special surprise appearance.”
Melissa, you have scattered a series of posts over this thread. Each merits just a single reply.
Do you have systematic and reliable evidence that Bruzynski’s therapy works at all? There are many questions to be answered about the efficacy and costs of chemotherapy for cancer, but it all boils down to a risk:benefit analysis and a cost:benefit analysis. How much greater than zero is the denominator of each of those fractions for Burzynski’s version of chemotherapy?
Your ire is entertaining. Are you able to stick around for a proper examination of your opinions?
Apparently not. Quelle surprise.
All your questions answered about Burzynski and the dirty tricks of the FDA its a 1.45 hour video everyone should watch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BH9XTxb290&feature=related
Also the 1939 cancer act has murdered more brits that hitler infact millions more because there have always been cures for cancer.. except they all came from nature.. The Tory party responsible for the cancer act also had to many vested interest and has jumped in bed with the pharmacuetical companies that could not patent nature so sort to ban or make false statements that those plants that cured cancer were dangerous. No money in nature big money if you can bastadize it and make a pill.
Tory’s banned the cannabis plant guess why? yep it cures cancer and you thought it was cause it was dangerous and made you high
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0psJhQHk_GI
Rena Caisse had a cancer cure back in 30’s. The cancer act would have silenced that. the FDA went out its way to silence any cure comming from nature
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTGye7kA6rM&feature=related
Graviola plant cures cancer but there trying to say it causes parkinsons disease, which is funny cause everywhere its eaten don’t have parkinsons disease.
Apricot kernals with B17 vitamin cures cancer. they say its got cyanide in and dangerous but The Hunza people live to 120 years eating apricot kernals and other foods with high vitamin B17 with no cancer infact they are just the opposite and are the healthiest people in the world.
Cancer treatment in the so called technological world has’nt changed in 50 years they use the slash and burn method with radio and chemopherapy both of which give cancer and kills more patients than it cures.
Once they have banned the plant they no longer can be used to treat cancer by anyone included themselves meaning millions of peolple have died for no reason except corporate greed
hope you enjoyed the vids, have a nice day
Thanks Liz, that certainly answered all my questions, even ones I didn’t have, like how much koolaid do you need to swallow before you lose all your marbles.
Sanity speaks. Thanks Liz. As i’m sure you’re aware anyway, the Harry Hoxsey case peaking in the 50’s, makes even more depressing reading. We witness it again with the F.D.A attack for decades on Burzynski. It does show also how the obsession with ‘evidence’, and clinical trial evidence based medicine is continuing to obscure or hide actual Cancer remedies. Research has now moved into ‘Big Pharma’ funded research establishments which divert actual evidence away to extrapolate the results one needs to sell another compromise.. Big bucks is killing people. I am making it my life cause to highlight Essiac, Gerson, Hoxsey, Linus Pauling, Rife…..and Burzynski who offers a comparatively cheap approach to complex, urgent Brain Tumour cases. The list of actual ridding the body of Cancer is abundant. No more wasted mega bucks in the ever elusive cure thanks. Lets get on with healing now. Cancer is solved. Done and dusted. We just do it. Interesting how Mainstream media dont touch these examples. How many of these are banned from the U.S.A…many because they work or they can’t Patent it. It just needs a revolution and that has begun again. [email protected]
and of course one doesn’nt separate Cancer therapy from Environmental health and diversity. As a soil association member it is heartening to hear Charlotte Gerson make repeated references to Organic, or Bio Dynamic.
“radio and chemopherapy both of which… kills more patients than it cures. [citation needed]”
This thread seems to have had an attack of hit and run loons. It would be so nice of even one of them would stick around to have their education-by-Google examined in detail.
But they never do. Is it that they know their worldview is dangerously brittle so even a tiny scratch causes it to shatter?