• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Burzynski alt-cancer cure... thoughts / comments

Antiquehunter

Degenerate Gambler
Antiquehunter
Joined
Aug 7, 2005
Messages
5,088
A friend of mine, who is big into the 'alt-medicine' movement, recently published a link to a 'ground-breaking & new' cancer cure...

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/06/11/burzynski-the-movie.aspx

Sounds like this guy is going to be actively pushing his 'cure' he's been touting for some 30+ years.

A quick bit of googling around, and I learned that this chap Burzynski has been around for quite some time looking for traction. Quackwatch has quite a bit on him.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski1.html

Now - I'm in the delicate situation of wanting to engage & rebut my friend, while keeping her as a friend. Obviously, we're likely going to end up on opposite sides of the page on this one, as she has bought into the big pharma conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo hook line and sinker. I, have not.

Any thoughts out there specifically about Burzynski, and about how to handle this sort of situation?

-AH.
 
Antiquehunter said:
A friend of mine, who is big into the 'alt-medicine' movement, recently published a link to a 'ground-breaking & new' cancer cure...

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/06/11/burzynski-the-movie.aspx

Sounds like this guy is going to be actively pushing his 'cure' he's been touting for some 30+ years.

A quick bit of googling around, and I learned that this chap Burzynski has been around for quite some time looking for traction. Quackwatch has quite a bit on him.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski1.html

Now - I'm in the delicate situation of wanting to engage & rebut my friend, while keeping her as a friend. Obviously, we're likely going to end up on opposite sides of the page on this one, as she has bought into the big pharma conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo hook line and sinker. I, have not.

Any thoughts out there specifically about Burzynski, and about how to handle this sort of situation?

-AH.
Click to expand...

She wouldn't be willing to read the link you offered above?

Linda
 
This story illustrate much more how POWERLESS the FDA is at cracking on quack, than anything else. That remind me a similar story of electro therapy that the FDA took year to forbid the import thereof.
 
She's now gone into a tirade against Dr. Barrett of Quackwatch, bringing up the harassment lawsuits against him. I fear she is lost.
 
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...

It's interesting how the person actually making a fortune with the product is imbued with pure motives. And if avarice was all that motivated physicians, why wouldn't they want to get in on this cash cow as well? Is any attempt made to explain away the lack of interest in other countries where the FDA does not rule and physician payments don't depend upon giving chemo?

Linda
 
Well I suspect it is because she herself makes her livelihood in the alt-med trade, so any 'attack' on the 'good' they do, is an attack against her. So - the best way to defend against one's own personal avarice is to suggest that 'big pharma' are the 'REAL' criminals... bla bla bla...

Oh - and while engaging in the attack, guess what - you're puffing yourself up as the 'savior'.

I don't know what the logical construct is here - absurdum? Reductio ad Switcheroo?
 
Antiquehunter said:
Well I suspect it is because she herself makes her livelihood in the alt-med trade, so any 'attack' on the 'good' they do, is an attack against her. So - the best way to defend against one's own personal avarice is to suggest that 'big pharma' are the 'REAL' criminals... bla bla bla...
Click to expand...

Even if she wasn't making a living this way, it's likely a lost cause, IMO.

I have friends who believe in various alt-med. On occasion, I've tried to slip in some... science. I'm not sure I've ever convinced them of anything.

If the friendship is important to me, I listen, perhaps nod... then change the subject.
 
Well, for starters, Mercola is a known quack. Nothing on his web page is likely to be valid. Then there is the frequently repeated CT scam, claim you have the cure they don't want you to know about. Then you can sell your snake oil and dismiss all the debunkers by claiming they are out to cover up your success to protect their own.

It's akin to the god belief meme. Disproof proves it. With Christian god beliefs, for example, god challenges your faith with evidence god is fiction. Therefore evidence against god is really evidence for god. It's God testing your faith.

In the CT meme, evidence against the claim is fabricated by the establishment, therefore it can be dismissed.

I suggest that rather than address the evidence, you consider the problem is not a knowledge deficit. The problem is faulty selection of valid sources.

It's a successful meme to discredit contradictory evidence and not an easy problem to solve. With cancer treatment you have the additional problem of the desire for a magical cure. If real medicine doesn't offer enough hope, then humans naturally imagine magical solutions. It's a coping mechanism which is part of the human brain.

One may also need to address the issue of hope, or lack of it, in addition to the adoption of a bad source of information and the CT meme protecting it.
 
Last edited:
fls said:
It's interesting how the person actually making a fortune with the product is imbued with pure motives. And if avarice was all that motivated physicians, why wouldn't they want to get in on this cash cow as well? Is any attempt made to explain away the lack of interest in other countries where the FDA does not rule and physician payments don't depend upon giving chemo?

Linda
Click to expand...
I think showing evidence for countries with nationalized health as well as evidence from countries with different systems for drug approval is one way to break down the CT barrier meme. Non-profit cancer research is another in this case. Anything that undermines the belief that the 'establishment' completely controls information should hypothetically be useful here.

Unfortunately it's not uncommon for some other rationalization to be created as a basis to dismiss whatever evidence contradicts the beliefs the person has established. And for that, ... I got nothing.
 
Antiquehunter said:
Well I suspect it is because she herself makes her livelihood in the alt-med trade, so any 'attack' on the 'good' they do, is an attack against her. So - the best way to defend against one's own personal avarice is to suggest that 'big pharma' are the 'REAL' criminals... bla bla bla...

Oh - and while engaging in the attack, guess what - you're puffing yourself up as the 'savior'.

I don't know what the logical construct is here - absurdum? Reductio ad Switcheroo?
Click to expand...

Does she support conspiracy theories in general, e.g. 911 was an inside job?

In my experience, and as someone else posted, it's (probably) a lost cause since any statement that isn't 100% in support will be viewed as an attack and your support for Big Pharma and you are brainwashed, a sheeple, a warmonger (!) and so on.

How to deal with it? It difficult to say the least, just stick to simple, demonstrable facts IMHO (e.g. WTC7 couldn't possibly collapse because of fire? Well, why do you think structural steel is coated in heat insulating material?) and don't get drawn into tangential, goal-post moving arguments.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
<snip>

I suggest that rather than address the evidence, you consider the problem is not a knowledge deficit. The problem is faulty selection of valid sources.

<snip>
Click to expand...

And usually countered with 'they' control the media, suppress and ridicule anything that isn't 'mainstream', kill people who are the whistle-blowers, so-called scientists have to toe the line to make a living and so aren't telling the Truth, how do you know what you're reading isn't a lie on the part of Big Pharma..., FDA is corrupt ('they approve drugs that kill millions, but prosecute someone who finds a cure'), I've spent hundreds of hours researching and cross-referencing and so on.

All I can say is that the typical CTer doesn't appear to actually research primary sources but is simply is taken in by the CT echo-chamber of repeated distortion, blinkered 'analysis' and perhaps a desire to have lots of like-minded Facebook contacts.

I'm getting too cynical, but I put up with this stuff just about everyday.
 
Last edited:
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...jkey=eaf21226703b21cd709dbd7acd5a8e48c199f2aa was halted due to poor accrual, after Burzynski failed to agree with the investigators on possible expansion of the eligibility criteria. Nine patients were accrued, six of whom were able to be evaluated for response. There were no objective responses, and all six showed evidence of tumor progression after treatment durations of between 16 to 66 days. The mean time to treatment failure (progression or discontinuation due to toxicity) was 29 days. All nine patients died before the study closed, all but one death being due to tumor progression. Although the authors of the article claimed that the small sample size precluded "definitive conclusions," the results of the patients in the trial are clearly extremely disappointing.
 
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...jkey=eaf21226703b21cd709dbd7acd5a8e48c199f2aa was halted due to poor accrual, after Burzynski failed to agree with the investigators on possible expansion of the eligibility criteria. Nine patients were accrued, six of whom were able to be evaluated for response. There were no objective responses, and all six showed evidence of tumor progression after treatment durations of between 16 to 66 days. The mean time to treatment failure (progression or discontinuation due to toxicity) was 29 days. All nine patients died before the study closed, all but one death being due to tumor progression. Although the authors of the article claimed that the small sample size precluded "definitive conclusions," the results of the patients in the trial are clearly extremely disappointing.
Click to expand...

Oh, this would be the study where they didnt follow the protocols they agreed to (by diluting the solution) before stealing his patent, right?

http://vimeo.com/24821365 You can watch for free until June 20th. Eagerly awaiting a debunking :)
 
Antiquehunter said:
A friend of mine, who is big into the 'alt-medicine' movement, recently published a link to a 'ground-breaking & new' cancer cure...

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/06/11/burzynski-the-movie.aspx

Sounds like this guy is going to be actively pushing his 'cure' he's been touting for some 30+ years.

A quick bit of googling around, and I learned that this chap Burzynski has been around for quite some time looking for traction. Quackwatch has quite a bit on him.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski1.html

Now - I'm in the delicate situation of wanting to engage & rebut my friend, while keeping her as a friend. Obviously, we're likely going to end up on opposite sides of the page on this one, as she has bought into the big pharma conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo hook line and sinker. I, have not.

Any thoughts out there specifically about Burzynski, and about how to handle this sort of situation?

-AH.
Click to expand...
Lost me as soon as I saw Mercola's name. He's an irresponsible putz who should be shot, as are any seeking to happily bilk money out of people who are desperate, or simply naive enough to buy into wild and utterly unproven claims over known methods.

Re your friend, I would probably just take a pass and let her believe (or claim to believe) whatever she wants. As you say, you're not just possibly attacking her beliefs, but her very livelihood. Odds of getting through are probably slim. But if you feel compelled, state your case gently and cautiously vs slamming them with some "oh don't be so gullible and stupid" attitude. Not only is it childish and rude but it's far less likely to get through.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Well, for starters, Mercola is a known quack. Nothing on his web page is likely to be valid. .
Click to expand...
Actually - and unfortunately (ironic) - that's not true. He's rather crafty that way, in fact; he'll throw up stuff which is indeed either valid or at least very viable (eg curcumin) to build his credibility - basically just enough so he can try to mix in the empty calorie BS and make a buck.
 
bigred said:
Lost me as soon as I saw Mercola's name. He's an irresponsible putz who should be shot, as are any seeking to happily bilk money out of people who are desperate, or simply naive enough to buy into wild and utterly unproven claims over known methods.
Click to expand...

I suppose Mike Adams of Natural News doesn't get as much traffic, but is perhaps just as bad (I don't visit either site, so I don't really know; I only read about them when a specific topic comes up).
 
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...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom