Burzynski alt-cancer cure... thoughts / comments

danceswithganja said:
Oh, this would be the study where they didnt follow the protocols they agreed to (by diluting the solution) before stealing his patent, right?
Click to expand...
Try and read the study, and see if you can find an acceptable explanation for the dose reduction.
 
summand said:
Well it depends on your definition of "as bad".

Mercola is a bit more sly in my opinion and usually creates a better mix of halftruths. He takes articles in serious newspapers or even CDC statements and "improves" them with his opinion. Usually people don't read the original and just believe his "analysis". Sure, Adams sometimes tries this too, but not as clever.

In my opinion Mercola is worse, because he sells himself better and is less blunt in his approach. A lie, mixed with truth simply works better than a flat lie...
Click to expand...
exactly
 
Sadly, Burzynski has now reared his head much closer to home (for me, anyway) - a young lad that lives about 5 minutes down the road from me is looking to raise €120,000 to go and have treatment with him. There's an article about it here:

http://www.thejournal.ie/campaign-l...r’s-life-210066-Aug2011/?utm_source=shortlink

I've commented on it, but I have my doubts that people will read it. There's an awful lot of emotion flying around, and some skeptics are really being more of a hindrance than anything else - posting "he's a mad quack and you're nuts" or other similar, short messages just hurts people and then they're too upset and angry to read anything else that you might have to say.

People keep linking that documentary as proof that it works too - I wonder if there is more information out there about what prompted Eric Merola to make it in the first place? It seems that he's friends with Burzynski, and it's clear that it's not a documentary, but really just a long and biased advertisement, but I wonder if there's even more to it than that...
 
Antiquehunter said:
She's now gone into a tirade against Dr. Barrett of Quackwatch, bringing up the harassment lawsuits against him. I fear she is lost.
Click to expand...
If she thinks Mercola is more credible than Barrett, I fear she is lost as well. If she herself or a loved one has cancer, it could be an act of wishful thinking or desperation. If it's just a debate about "the cures the establishment is hiding form you", there may be more hope of her coming around at some point in the future.
 
Yep, Mercola in fact is IMO one of the worst for reasons described above. Big surprise he'd be in bed with the other guy.

zenbuffy said:
There's an awful lot of emotion flying around, and some skeptics are really being more of a hindrance than anything else - posting "he's a mad quack and you're nuts" or other similar, short messages just hurts people and then they're too upset and angry to read anything else that you might have to say.
Click to expand...
Sound like a day at JREF. Only diff is instead of being snotty and rude towards people's religious beliefs, it's about alternative med stuff.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
If she thinks Mercola is more credible than Barrett.
Click to expand...

I think it is worth noting that Eric Merola, the creator of the movie is not affiliated with Joseph MerCola. Just to avoid a possible mixup.

Maybe, just maybe, you can play the "CoS" card. Tell her to google "Julian Whitaker Scientology", Whitaker is one of the main speakers in the video. Some people react badly on info like that. I know, it is for the wrong reason (just because someone who has connections to CoS appeared in a video, doesn't proof anything), but if it saves her a lot of money?
 
Last edited:
Ok, so I am watching this movie http://vimeo.com/24821365 that was referenced in post #16 and had to dig this thread back up. Has anyone else watched this (it's on Netflix also)? If you use that vimeo link I suggest avoiding all the comments below, they are quite ridiculous...

Anyways, I was hoping to hear more feedback about this man's medicine. And maybe danceswithganja from post #16 is still waiting for the movie to be debunked...
 
Well... you could read all the previous links in the thread that shows the problems with his 'medicine'.

My 'Quackwatch' link in Post #1, post #2, post #4, post #15...
 
jli said:
You could try and show her an independent study that attempted at verifying Burzynskis idea.

A Phase II trial in glioma conducted under the auspices of the National Cancer Institute http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.co...a8e48c199f2aa[/ur][/QUOTE] Page not found :(
Click to expand...
 
If you're trying to discredit Burzynski with your friend, and not alt med in general, you might want to focus on the fact that most of the drugs he uses are conventional chemotherapy agents. He claims to be personalizing them somehow, but it's still the "poison" that the alt med types say they reject. Your friend probably wouldn't look at the Science-Based Medicine or Respectful Insolence articles that talk about that. However, if she does her own searching even for the sort of credulous write-ups, she ought to be able to tell that there are standard chemo-like side effects. ETA: One thing to watch for is references to a central line, which implies an agent that needs to be diluted to therapeutic strength fast.

I doubt you can talk her out of alt med, but there's a bare chance you can convince her that Burzynski is phony in his alternativeness. That might possibly cause a glimmer of doubt about Burzynski's supporters. Probably won't work, but it might have a slightly better chance than a direct approach.
 
Last edited:
r-j said:
Page not found :(
Click to expand...

jdc324 said:
I think this is the Mayo Clinic paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10069350
Click to expand...

It appears the article has been taken off. The pubmed-link is correct.

Although the authors feel that they can't conclude anything about treatment efficacy, the facts remain that:

1) 6 out of 6 (those where they could measure tumour size) progressed
2) 9 out of 9 died before the study closed.

It is difficult to imagine that it would be effective in a larger study.
 
This blog post might also be of interest if you want to explain to people that The Burzynski therapy isn't as successful as it is claimed to be.

The poster traced patients who are claimed to be living proofs of efficacy. It turns out that several of them have died of their cancers.
 
Can anyone point me in the direction of a summary/overview of court cases that, I understand, involves/involved Dr Burzynski and the FDA?

Thanks.
 
Antiquehunter

If your friend found she had cancer, do you think she would in fact go for conventional treatment?
 
@Susan - I think she is the sort of person to do the conventional, supplemented by whatever alternative therapy crossed her prow. And then would likely attribute any success to her favorite pet alternative therapy.

She is into homeopathy, yoga (not just the stretching bit, but the chakra realignment stuff), I suspect anti-vaxx, naturopathic, Weil / Mercola crapola.

I have pretty much decided not to engage with her anymore. She isn't going to listen to me, anyways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom