Monday, 28 November 2011

Dr Burzynski's crooked antineoplastons


This article - I've tried to keep it as sho
rt as possible, under the circumstances - is about a reprehensible little crook called Stanislaw Burzynski.

(Although the guy looks uncomfortably like a 1970s German pornstar, let's not judge on appearances.)


If you're not familiar with the man, you're almost certainly familiar with his work. "Dr" Burzynski is in the business of selling miracle cancer cures from his "clinic" in Texas.

Medical charlatans aren't exactly an endangered species, of course, but "Dr" Burzynski's activities set new standards of excellence in quackery. I'll let the Daily Fail take the story from here...

"When [7-year-old] Maya [Perrin-Skippen] was diagnosed with the rare brain tumour in September 2006 she was given a 50 per cent chance of surviving, but after a course of intensive chemotherapy and a seven hour biopsy the tumour disappeared...

A year later doctors discovered the cancer had returned...


Her parents raised
£77,000 to fly the family to a specialist centre in Houston - the only place which will treat the schoolgirl...

Maya's father said British doctors have told him they cannot operate... But after trawling the internet the family found a doctor in America willing to treat her...


'Two years ago, I found the Burzynski Clinic after many hours of online searching', he said.


'I couldn't believe what I was reading. Dr. Burzynski has cured many recurrent brain tumours with his pioneering Antineoplaston Therapy... The treatment costs £50,000 per year... I am certain it will cure my little angel of the cancer that has taken her over..."

At this point it's worth asking if you can recall reading lots of similar stories about desperate families trying to raise money to send a cancer victim to a "specialist clinic in America".

These kinds of articles appear with tedious regularity in the British newspapers, and only the most alert of readers will spot that the clinic in question is almost invariably the Burzynski Clinic.


Is the clinic any good? Can "Dr" Burzynski really treat cancer?

It's surprisingly difficult to find out. I've summarised the sum total of "Dr" Burzynski's published research on the effectiveness of antineoplaston therapy for curing cancer - gathered over a 35-year research career - in the box below.


Fortunately, "Dr" Burzynski is not the only man doing "research" in this field. Saul Green - a real doctor who didn't charge
£70,000 a pop - reviewed the available evidence and reached a surprising conclusion:

"Burzynski has never demonstrated that A-2.1 (PA) or 'soluble A-10' (PA and PAG) are effective against cancer or that tumor cells from patients treated with these antineoplastons have been 'normalized.'

Tests of antineoplastons at the National Cancer Institute have never been positive.

The drug company Sigma-Tau Pharmaceuticals could not duplicate Burzynski's claims for AS-2.1 and A-10.

The Japanese National Cancer Institute has reported that antineoplastons did not work in their studies.

No Burzynski coauthors have endorsed his use of antineoplastons in cancer patients.

These facts indicate to me that Burzynski's claims that his 'antineoplastons' are effective against cancer are not credible."

In other words, we can be sure that these cancer claims attributed to "Dr" Burzynski's "clinic" are 100% industrial-grade bullshit.



Of course, if you go looking on "Dr" Burzynski's website you'll struggle to find a mention of the word "cure". The therapy is (it says here) only available as a "clinical trial".

If you're familiar with the term "clinical trial", you're probably thinking of research conducted on a randomised pool of volunteers, under controlled conditions, and whose results are published in reputable medical journals. Healthy volunteers are usually paid for their time (and are covered by insurance if something goes wrong).

"Dr" Burzynski, on the other hand, seems to have a new and bolder understanding of the term. If you're selected as a "volunteer" in one of his "clinical trials" - for a therapy we already know does not work - the fees are so stupendously large you'll probably have to sell your house and hand over your entire life savings, yet the results might not be published for at least 35 years.



In recent weeks "Dr" Burzynski's philanthropic deeds have been attracting much attention, and little of it positive.

It now seems evident that "Dr" Burzynski has heard about Britain's repressive libel laws and, envious of the all fun and games in the London law courts, is keen to get a piece of the action for himself.

"Dr" Burzynski's "lawyer" - more about that later - is a chap who describes himself as Marc Stephens.

The thing is, folks, I'm also feeling a bit jealous. Almost everyone has been getting some nice legal threats, except me, so here's what I'm going to do.

First I'm going to make a statement about "Dr" Burzynski (in red). Immediately below "Dr Burzynski's "lawyer" will find my current contact details.

Finally, I'll post a copy of some of the legal threats "Dr" Burzynski's "lawyer" has been sending to all and sundry. I realise that a "lawyer"'s time is precious, so perhaps "Marc" will omit the tedious semi-literate correspondence and get down to the actual writ-issuing!

"Dr" Stanislaw Burzynski of the Burzynski Clinic (Houston, Texas) is a crook, a conman, a charlatan, a fraud and a quack. This reprehensible little man ruthlessly exploits the desperate relatives of the incurably ill with a series of phoney 'clinical trials' whose sole outcome is not to expand the knowledge of mankind, but to separate the poor families from their life savings. "Dr" Burzynski has been making claims for an antineoplaston therapy for the last 35 years yet apparently has not deigned to publish the results of any of his phoney 'clinical trials' in any prestigious peer-reviewed medical journal. None of the misleading cancer-treatment claims made by the clinic (on their website and on other social media, such as YouTube) for "Dr" Burzynski's antineoplaston therapy are supported my the tiniest jot of published rigorous clinical evidence, yet he happily promotes these bogus treatments. I have not seen any evidence that the PhD "Dr" Burzynski claims to hold exists anywhere but in his own imagination (though I do not doubt that "Dr" Burzynski holds a legitimate medical qualification). I have not seen any evidence that "Marc Stephens" is a qualified and registered lawyer, nor indeed that he is even a non-fictitious person. If "Dr" Burzynski or his "lawyer" draw my attention to any factual errors on this page, I should be delighted to correct them upon receipt of substantiating evidence.

Here are my contact details - lawyers, get in touch for the address where your defamation writs should be sent!

Ron Lewis
cassus53bc (usual symbol) googlemail (usual symbol) com

And here are copies of the threatening letters send to another critic, Rhys Morgan, which might be still available on his site by the time you read this.

"Hello Rhys Morgan,

I represent Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, Burzynski Clinic, and Burzynski Research Institute.

It has been brought to our attention that you have content on your website and on your Twitter account that is in violation of several state and federal laws.

This is a legal complaint regarding the your multiple twitter account posts, and article you posted online titled “The Burzynski Clinic dated August 28, 2011, by Rhys Morgan”. This correspondence constitutes a demand that you immediately cease and desist in your actions defaming and libeling my clients. Please allow this correspondence to serve as notice to you that you published libelous and defamatory information.

Please be advised that my clients consider the content of your postings to be legally actionable under numerous legal causes of action, including but not limited to: libel, defamation, and tortious interference with business contracts and business relationships.

The information you assert in your postings is factually incorrect and posted with either actual knowledge, or reckless disregard for its falsity, and with the actual and specific malice to injure my client’s business relationships in the community.

I am not sure if you are familiar with Defamation (Libel). If not, I will assist you.

What is Defamation (Libel)

Libel is a published or fixed form of defamation of character; a civil wrong that falsely impugns the reputation or character of a person or entity, opening the target up to public scorn or ridicule. Libel might appear in a magazine, book, newspaper, or in a radio or television broadcast. Signs, billboards or posters can also be mediums for libel. Online libel, or cyber libel takes electronic forms such as email, mailing lists, newsgroups, chat rooms, podcasts, vodcasts and Web pages. Although many citizens do not yet realize it, comments made to chat boards, newsgroups and even mailing lists are all forms of publication. Criticisms of companies or their goods can be a basis for libel charges if the poster misrepresents facts, or fails to qualify his or her post as opinion.

Every comment you made in your article is highly incorrect. I suggest you remove ALL references about my client on the internet in its entirety, and any other defamatory statement about my client immediately, or I will file suit against you.

I am not sure where you obtained your incorrect information, but you will be held liable for your statements. REMOVE ARTICLE IMMEDIATELY.

GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY.

Marc Stephens
Burzynski Clinic
9432 Katy Freeway
Houston, Texas 77055"

"Marc" is "not sure if you are familiar with Defamation" but is willing to "assist you"...?

Lol, nice trolling "Marc"! Second letter:


"Hello Rhys,

Please forward the notice to your parents if you are actually in High School. This is a very serious matter. Although you have a right to freedom of speech, it is against the law to post slanderous or libelous statements. Because your statements have been read by third parties you are now also interfering with my clients business, and you are emotionally effecting Dr. Burzynski’s as well as his cancer patients around the world. Please remove all references about my client, as well as all libelous statements immediately. I have already copied your website and twitter account as proof of the statements.

Once you remove your libelous statements, you will agree, that you immediately cease and desist from making any further unsupported, defamatory, libelous or harmful statements relating to my clients through any medium, including the Internet.

You are to remove existing statements, and are not to post, host, or make available any libelous, false or defamatory statements against my clients via the Internet, television, radio, print or any other forms of media. You shall not create any new alias, nor use any old alias, to post, host, or make available any statement regarding my client via the Internet, television, radio, print or any other forms of media. You will provide a public apology to Dr. Burzynski and his patients and post it on your websites, and social media sites.

Once removed, I can provide you with the correct information from the National Cancer Institute and several doctors who testified to the effectiveness of Antineoplastons. In addition, my client is FDA approved for Phase 3 clinical trials. You are reading lies and misunderstandings on the internet, which you are still liable for re-posting this information. I appreciate you contacting me to resolve this matter.

Regards,

Marc Stephens"

So, it's "against the law to post slanderous or libelous statements," eh? Possibly in Zimbabwe, "Marc", but over here in Europe it's not "against the law" at all! I wonder, do you have any legal qualifications?

Third letter:


"Hello Rhys,

I greatly appreciate you removing the articles and comments.

You are responsible for whatever you post online. You need to spend time understanding defamation laws if you want to start a career as a blogger. You can be sued for “Not Knowing”, its called Negligence. You can not interfere with business relationships and contracts. If you do not understand what you are doing I suggest you stop posting articles. Your “Opinion” can also get you sued. Look up the recent Google case in the UK. Google was sued and lost because their algorithm created “SCAM”, “FRAUD”, etc next to a business owner’s name. We also filed a complaint with Google and they had to remove the wording. If you think you are bigger than Google than enjoy life in the court room. There are many stories online that you can find that tell you the truth about Dr. Burzynski. If you are interested in learning I can guide you to the truth. I’ve watch some of your videos and you are a really smart guy. Use that intelligence in a positive way. Be careful online and good luck.

Thanks,

MARC"

It's certainly true you can find links to "many stories online that... tell you the truth about Dr. Burzynski" all over the web. My favourite is this report of "Dr" Burzynski's 1994 appearance in court. Accused of fraud, he lost the case and lost again on appeal.

Final letter:

"Rhys,

This is my THIRD AND FINAL WARNING to you.

Please convey this message to your entire Skeptic Network, which includes but not limited to, Ratbags.com, thetwentyfirstfloor, quackwatch, etc. I represent Dr. Burzynski, the Burzynski Clinic, and the Burzynski Research Institute. I've attached Azad Rastegar, and Renee Trimble from the Burzynski Clinic for your confirmation.

In the following weeks I will be giving authorization to local attorneys in multiple countries to pursue every defamation libel case online, including your online libelous statements. I suggest you shut down your entire online defamation campaign about Dr. Burzynski, and remove ALL recent or previous comments off the internet IMMEDIATELY. The minute you post any libelous comments online about my client I will pursue you and your parents/guardians To the Full Extent of the Law. I have no obligation to train you, or teach you, the meaning of defamation. Google it, or go to the library and research it.

This is a very serious matter. Please confirm your mailing address, which I have on record as (my address). If you do not cooperate an official legal complaint requesting punitive damages will be mailed to that address. I will be contacting your school as well to inform them of your illegal acts.

Again, this is my FINAL WARNING TO YOU.

Regards,

Marc Stephens
"

The final letter concluded with a photo of the critic's house in Wales.

It is worth noting, in conclusion, that the victim of this sinister "we know where you live" threat is a teenager. It's apparently not the first time that "Marc Stephens" has threatened a child.

(Image credit)

33 comments:

  1. Good on yer. I do hope he remembers that you must post early in the UK if you want your letters and nparcels to arrive in time for Christmas.

    AS for me, well I suppose I'd better clear the snow off my Transylvanian hideout's helicopter landing pad in case he wants to contact me as well.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Lol! It is my real address, though. Anyone who doubts this is welcome to come over for a nice cup of afternoon tea.

    ReplyDelete
  3. With cake? I'll be right over...

    ReplyDelete
  4. You are a phony, arrogant, unprofessional, and subjective American critic who brings some good points, like him making a lot of money or making others pay a lot, but you don't acknowledge the fact that he DID SAVE A LOT OF PATIENT LIVES WHEN OTHERS COULDN'T and that THE MEDICAL SYSTEM IN UNITED STATES IS FLAWED, because corporations control the government through money; there is no incentive for companies to verify or to allow any kind of verification of different solutions to health problems when their profit is endangered. Make a research on the health system in Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the ideas of

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi IS,

    If Burzynski really has "SAVE[d] A LOT OF PATIENT LIVES WHEN OTHERS COULDN'T", why do you think that, after 35 years, he still hasn't found the time to publish his evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Unlike "big PhRMA" (watch "Big Pharma Big Bucks" for free on-line) Burzynski is denied grants or funding of any kind from NCI for the ongoing clinical trials. FDA demands tens of millions per each type of antineoplaston they consider for approval. WHERE is he going to get this kind of money?? He MUST look to the patients that receive the treatment. Got a better idea? An arrangement more equitable in your perception? Before you answer might I suggest you watch the ENTIRE video? Why do you consider it appropriate to criticize a potentially life saving, non toxic cancer therapy that you obviously know not the slightest thing about. How will you feel about yourself if you are wrong and just one person died because he read and believed your critique? You will just have to live with it won't you?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi Anonymous,

    If "Dr" Burzynski's "clinical trials" are "potentially life saving, non toxix cancer" therapies, why do you think it is that we're having so much trouble tracking down a single one of his "patients" who are still alive?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sceptical Letter Writer said: "If "Dr" Burzynski's "clinical trials" are "potentially life saving, non toxix cancer" therapies, why do you think it is that we're having so much trouble tracking down a single one of his "patients" who are still alive?"

    Let's see what happens when I google "burzynski patients"... 1st hit is? daa daa!
    www.burzynskipatientgroup.org/

    P.S. How can you hold such negative and venomous opinions on a critical subject with which you're so clearly unaquainted?
    Do us ALL a favor and watch the entire video, k?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi Anonymous,

    Which entire video do you mean?

    ReplyDelete
  10. The video I'm referring to is on top of the home page of: www.burzynskipatientgroup.org/
    All of your concerns regarding antineoplastons
    are addressed. Your critique leaves the impression that you are unfamiliar with the background of Dr. Burzynski/antineoplastons.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I only hope you dedicate just as much time to Big Pharma fraud such as the faked cancer research of Dr. Anil Pott who raised many false hopes and deceived dying cancer patients.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Classic misinformation here. You only have to watch "Dr Burzynski the Movie" to see this critic has has no foundation. The evidence and the witnesses who will travel the country to back the good doctor when the authorities try to close him down and steal his patent. This is what the whole vendetta is about. Owning the patent..Watch the movie people. it's free to watch on line. Then decide.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hi unknown,

    Movie, schmoovie. When is "Dr" Burzynski going to publish his evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  14. I feel sorry for you, you just want to see what you want to see.....time is the best answer for you.....life will give you back all self hatred that you keep putting towards other people and therapies that could save lives.....why don't you write about all death that chemeotherapy has caused....there is much evidence prove on that.....

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hi Anonymous,

    It's not true that I see what I want to see.

    What I [b]want[/b] to see is Burzynski's clinical evidence. How many more years do you think I'll have to wait?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dear Sceptical Writer,

    Science is always evolving.. our current methods of controlled clinical trials will probably be outdated in the next 50 years, as there are many types of therapies that they can't cover.

    I recently met a young person who's brain tumour was not shrunk by radiation therapy but was cured by Dr Burzynski. I don't know about trials but I know that he is alive, and not only alive but surfing, and travelling, and enjoying a healthy life. I can give you his parents number if you really are having so much trouble 'tracking down patients'.

    Conversely, my 16 yr old niece died of a brain tumour last year, after 2 rounds of chemo and surgery. She actually declined a 3rd round of chemo and chose death, even though she knew it would come quickly, rather than go through chemo again. She chose death over chemo. At age 16. People die irrespective of surgery, chemo and radio all the time. Irrespective of whether those therapies had been approved after a clinical trial. To an individual, their life is 100%.

    Anyway I will rest my case now, as you are clearly not a scientific journalist, only a blogger. Just unfortunate that people might come across your website when searching cancer treatments and you actually may be responsible for a death. Can't say I'd want that on my conscience.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hi Anonymous,

    If Burzynski really can cure cancer, as you say, why do you think he won't publish the results of his research?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hi Sceptical,

    I actually don't know. I can only speak from my own experience, which makes me question the validity of your statements. Do you think it's possible that he HAS come across some great opposition in his research? That the statements made by he and his company could actually be true?

    I haven't read much of your other 'material' to be honest, but I'm curious to know, are you only sceptical about 'alternative' methods to the mainstream or do you also question the validity of current methods of clinical trials as well. I mean how far does your enquiring mind take this.. scepticism is fine if it's really open to discovering the truth about something but it seems to me that you went into this with a biased position before you even started. No doubt you wouldn't have such an active blog if that was the case obviously. People like a good argument.

    Since you have very actively held one point of view on the matter, why don't you go back into it and try to really listen and just SEE if any of the material supporting the other side of the argument could actually be true.

    Then maybe you could become an activist, rather than a sceptic.. and do some great good in the world!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Anonymous,

      Which part of "When is Burzynski going to publish his evidence" do you think is invalid?

      Delete
  19. You know people, you guys obviously don't have all the facts of what Dr. Burnzynski has accomplished nor what he went through over the years in proving to the country about his discoveries. If you watch the documentary "Burzynski" you will find out more to your rediculious questions and skeptisms of whether or not Antineoplastons work or not. Frankly, from what I have read from this article this person has no idea what he's talking about. All this person is doing is repeating BS which the media (propaganda from NCI and FDA) has pushed onto the public trying to run Dr. Burzynski's name in the mud due to them trying to protect their trillion dollar current treatment practices. Get the whole facts before trying to make statements that are incomplete. Furthermore, if his treatments with Antineoplastons are fake, why did the federal government steal his patons for the biochemicals which is used in ANP's if they didn't work? It's simple, the gov. wanted the golden goose for themselves or try to shelve the discovery so they can continue have the FDA and NCI keep using the BS treatment (which has proven to cause lukemia) in order to keep the money rolling in. If you don't believe this, just take a look back into history. Look what happened with the money when they actually CURED polio? The money for research stopped coming in and when a preventive vaccine was developed, the money stopped altogether!!! It's more profitable to invent treatments than it is to invent cures!!!

    I really can't believe how stupid and blind people are in the world. How they are so quick to judge and jump to conclusions before then know what they are talking about and what's really more amazing, that they actually believe in what they are talking about even though it's based on incomplete and total nonsense!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your spelling is atrocious.

      Delete
    2. Hi Anonymous,

      I would love to "get the whole facts", as you put it.

      When do you think Burzynski will start publishing some of his research?

      Delete
  20. It's too bad you couldn't avoid the shot at Bush.

    ReplyDelete
  21. This says it all! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qG_ZWs04es

    ReplyDelete
  22. Ron Lewis you've proved your point - you are a piss poor excuse of a human being. LOL! You sound sooooo jealous in these poorly written 'complaints'. Someone just needs to punch you in the face. I think I'll be swinging by to do that... See you soon mate...

    ReplyDelete
  23. slanderous and badly written.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I actual spent some time at the "clinic" in houston in 2008. During that time, dr. Burzynski was in his 2nd phase of trials. He also has patents. I saw first hand a patient who received the antineoplaston therapy. They were there for a follow up, and was in complete remission. I don't think they were putting on a show just for me.
    Also, there is a drug for liver disease, when metabolized, actually produces neoplastons. This drug was accepted as a treatment of cancer in the EU in 2008.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Produces the *antineoplastons

      Delete
    2. Hi Anonymous,

      Burzynski's "trials" have now been going on for over thirty years. We're still waiting for him to publish his results.

      Delete
  25. You sir are a tool Mr. Sceptical and I hope your child never has an inoperable brain tumor... I could say this dr should turn you away but he is in the business of saving lives, not being a vengeful keyboard warrior.
    I think the govt. should suck it up and give the man some credit, we can fight cancer together!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Frankly this doctor has won every court case he and the FDA have been involved in.

    The judeges cannot beleieve the FDA.

    maybe you are the one that needs to wake up.

    Tom - Sydney, Australia

    ReplyDelete
  27. Many people make the mistake of assuming that everything has to be black and white. If people would look carefully at the facts they would realize that some of Dr. Burzinski's patients benefited from antineoplaston therapy, others were harmed, and some just wasted money on a treatment that made no difference.
    The FDA and other government agencies are severely corrupted by powerful special interests with deep pockets. The U.S. government will never do what is right. The FDA should have approved antineoplastons for widespread use
    many years ago with the understanding that some cancer patients would benefit and others would not.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.