Stanislaw Burzynski - Another Bullying Quack

You know the story. Stanislaw Burzynski is a doctor in Texas who claims to be able to treat and cure many cancers with “antineoplaston therapy.” Except there is no evidence that he can. When a skeptical blogger wrote about this, pointing out the total lack of evidence for these claims, and the huge sums of money being asked of desperate people wanting to try the therapy, instead of responding with the evidence that his treatment really does work, the bullying quack (or technically a pretend-lawyer claiming to represent him) issued threats to sue anyone who does not immediately remove their posts from the intertubes. Hilarity ensued.

Here are a few recent posts from the best and brightest, summarizing the situation.

1. What kicked it all off: The Quackometer on the false hope of the Stanislaw Burzynski Clinic antineoplaston therapy for cancer.
2. This was followed by threats by one Marc Stephens, a not-lawyer representing the Stanislaw Burzynski Clinic antineoplaston therapy for cancer.
3. Orac writes about the threats, and says The Stanislaw Burzynski Clinic antineoplaston therapy for cancer is rank pseudoscience.
4. Rhys Morgan, a 17 year old Welsh blogger, wrote about the Stanislaw Burzynski Clinic antineoplaston therapy for cancer and called Stanislaw Burzynski a quack and a fraud.
5. The blogger referred to above then received threats from the same Marc Stephens, the not-lawyer for the Stanislaw Burzynski Clinic antineoplaston therapy for cancer.
6. The Quackometer writes about how the Stanislaw Burzynski Clinic antineoplaston therapy for cancer threatened the 17 year old blogger. He comments, “It is just likely that at 17 years of age, Rhys Morgan has already saved more lives by simply speaking out than Burzynski has in three decades with his fixation on his “antineoplastons.”
7. Orac writes about these additional threats from the not-lawyer representing the Stanislaw Burzynski Clinic antineoplaston therapy for cancer, and comments “Here's a chance for Dr. Burzynski to prove that he is, as he claims, a man of science. After all, sending an pit poodle like Mr. Stephens out to harass and threaten anyone who criticizes him is not the act of someone who is confident in the science backing his cancer treatment. Sending legal threats to a teenager for having criticized the pseudoscience of antineoplastons, as Stephens has done, is not the act of someone who has the evidence to back him up.”
8. Peter Bowditch of The Millenium Project also posts the threats from the Stanislaw Burzynski Clinic antineoplaston therapy for cancer. He writes, “One of the people attacked in the email, Dr Saul Green, can't defend himself because he died in 2007, but since when has recognition of facts ever bothered anyone associated with Burzynski.”
9. PAL asks is the Stanislaw Burzynski Clinic antineoplaston therapy for cancer threatening critics? He writes, “The first decade of the 21th century does not appear to have been a good one for Burzynski, at least as a legitimate cancer researcher. As is usual with people confronted by their own failures, they or their proxies may lash out.”
10. PAL also asks if the Stanislaw Burzynski Clinic antineoplaston therapy for cancer can do what it claims.  He concludes, “There is nothing on his own website that doesn’t make me uncomfortable.  As far as I can tell from my own reading, there is no public database of his results in treating cancer.  There is no way to verify the hyperbolic claims made by his supporters.  As a physician, I would advise any patient of mine to steer clear of this man.”
11. Steven Novella writes about the Stanislaw Burzynski Clinic antineoplaston therapy for cancer and concludes “Burzynski’s claims are not credible. His behavior is very atypical, and in my opinion is unethical, with all the red flags for cancer quackery. Potential patients and their families should be aware of these facts and be very suspicious of the Burzynski clinic.”
12. Phil Plait writes about the Stanislaw Burzynski Clinic antineoplaston therapy for cancer, pointing out that “according to the National Cancer Institute, “No randomized, controlled trials showing the effectiveness of antineoplastons have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.” That’s a bad sign.”
13. Even PZ gets in on the story about the Stanislaw Burzynski Clinic antineoplaston therapy for cancer, that he calls the domain of scoundrels and quacks.
14. As does Ophelia (writing about the Stanislaw Burzynski Clinic antineoplaston therapy for cancer).
15. Majikthyse writes about the clinical trials for sale by the Stanislaw Burzynski Clinic antineoplaston therapy for cancer.
16. Thanks to Ophelia I discover that Josephine Jones has a list of posts on the Stanislaw Burzynski Clinic antineoplaston therapy for cancer, which at least saves me from any more of this repetition. 76 links – I’m exhausted at 16. Josephine, I don’t know how you do it.

Comments

[Andy]

I never much liked Barbra Streisand until I discovered the sceptical blogosphere.

[Acleron]

Well done, these bullying tactics and dubious medical claims need all the publicity possible.

[Liz Ditz]

There are two distinct issues here:

1. The pseudomedicine and quackery of the Burzynski Clinics.
2. Legal threats by Marc Stephens, allegedly a representative of the Clinic, to bloggers (Lewis, Rhys Morgan, and Peter Bowditch most notably)

Josephine Jones is curating a list of all the posts having to do with both issues at

http://josephinejones.wordpress.com/2011/11/25/stanislaw-streisand-and-spartacus/

I'm curating a list of posts having to do (mostly) with the second issue at

http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2011/11/a-pr-flack-attempts-bullying-ridicule-ensues.html

And for all of you who are confused about the whole thing, Crispian Jago sums it up in 17 easy-to-read panels

http://crispian-jago.blogspot.com/2011/11/skeptic-park-4-featuring-rhys-morgan.html

[Gr8GooglyMoogly]

Off topic, but nice to see you back!!

[Guy McCardle]

This whole matter with Burzynski just stinks. Ever if there is nothing wrong with his questionable medical practices, which there is, the way chose to handle criticism by skeptics shows a lot about his character. Instead of hiring an attorney to handle this matter, he hired someone to PRETEND to be an attorney to harass those who criticized him.

Brzynski is doing nothing but profiting from misery by taking large sums of money from dying people for his quack treatments.

You might want to check out my new skeptically themed website/podcast at The Inconvenient Truth.

[Supporter]

Just like Dr. Chen said, everyone wants a piece of Burzynski's pie... so sad that so many of you belive what they want you to believe

[King of Ferrets]

A piece of his pie? Wouldn't getting that entail benefiting off his work rather than just point out that he's a dangerous quack?

[Yojimbo]

Actually, I'm more curious about the "they" that want us to believe stuff. Who am them anyway - are they us? 'cause I always thought it was us against them.

And - is Supporter athletic?

[Mo Jordan]

See the movie before you make your judgment. http://www.burzynskimovie.com/

[Yakaru]

Easier than watching the movie is reading Orac's critique.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/11/burzynski_the_movie_subtle_its_not.php

One brief passage:
"Merola's pledge that the the opening 30 minutes of the movie would "thoroughly establish" that Burzynski has discovered the genetic mechanism that can cure most cancers was clearly not kept. These three testimonials do not constitute convincing evidence that antineoplastons can cure cancer. Given that they are almost certainly the absolute best cases that Burzynski could come up with, I'm forced to wonder what the denominator was. How many patients were treated with antineoplastons and didn't exhibit results even this good? Thousands upon thousands. Meanwhile, interspersed throughout these testimonials are comparisons of Burzynski's results to results of standard therapy that are deceptive in the extreme, given that small, unrandomized groups subject to selection bias are not comparable to larger clinical trials of standard-of-care treatments."

[gmcevoy]

burzynski charges $200K per subject for what he says is a "cure" in what appears to be an endless study of 30+ years

big pharma charged me zip as a subject for two studies and actually cured me in two years while gaining approval (I think) to legally charge the afflicted

holistic alternatives take time to flesh out I guess and the maverick underdogs hawking controversial ideas challenging established dogma need to put bread on the table too

[Skemono]

See the movie before you make your judgment. http://www.burzynskimovie.com/

Why on earth we would waste our time doing that?

[David]

The thing people realize is the sheer numbers that are against chemo and radiation. If his approach has THAT much more success than chemo does, how can you go against it. People are so naiive to think that the pharmeceutical companies are looking out for your best interest when clearly the FDA (which is government controlled) gains to benefit by his treatment failing. OPEN YOUR EYES AND REALIZE THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS A BUNCH OF GREEDY BASTARDS OUT FOR YOUR MONEY. Some of you need to gain knowledge and inform yourselves instead of trusting those in office who love your money.

[Yojimbo]

Um - I don't get it. The government creates our money. If they want it why not just create more and eliminate the middle man?

Anyway, the gist of this argument seems to be "fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong". Seriously weak :)

[gmcevoy]

but the quack isn't that successful and uses the chemo you deride as part of his "cure"

besides, if it were so efficacious, he would benefit just like Offit

instead he charges marks patients $200K or so and calls it a study because he really can't legally hornswoggle sell to the public

for over 30 years

the first study I was in used approved medicine and would have cost $21,600 for the year if not for public healthcare - these meds have a fifty-fifty record, does the quack?

the second used experimental medicine and was gratis for up to a year and cured me in six months

to recap

quack - $200k/patient for thirty years of evidence free study

big pharma - $21.6k/patient (guvmint tab) with 50% cure rate in year or less with proven approved meds AND totally free experimental unapproved meds (big pharma tab) that cured in six months from a study that took several years but, THIRTY?

who's THE GREEDY BASTARD OUT FOR YOUR MONEY?

take your own advice

[Big Al]

The "evil Big Pharma minions all think and act alike" schtick makes me laugh.

They have pots of money taken from the poor and needy and instead of spending it on cheap, worthwhile, functional cures, they spend it on expensive treatments designed to cause the maximum suffering possible with no chance of a cure.

Bu-WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Sorry, couldn't keep that one in any longer.

I often wonder why some equally money-grabbing, avaricious, cash-obsessed company - just one - doesn't provide 100% cure nice, cheap, chemo-free, rad-free, surgery-free treatment in a nice raspberry-flavoured drink, if it really exists.

With their resources, they could fund study after study to prove its efficacy and put all their super-nasty competitors out of business!

Still, I guess they all have to sign the Evil Big Pharma Code of Non-Competitiveness while they're studying at Nasty Med University. There's honour among these evil poisoners that would shame Sir Galahad.

The same way all the oil companies all insist on paying billions to extract oil from the ground rather than spending, say, a couple of million buying the rights to the fabled water-powered-engine design and wiping out their competitors. Instead they spend those millions on trying to cover up the fact that this device even exists. Possibly committing murder to keep it secret.

And they still spend billions exploring, surveying, building rigs and drilling, fractionating, transporting...

Damn fools!

[Donnella]

All the comments bad or good about Dr Burzynski. The bottom line is his Treatment should have been given Clinical Trails. This would have stop all this bitching and bullshit. Why is the FDA so against the trails and why did they try to steel his ideas? They are so worried, if what he states is true. I did think anybody would do Chemo again, so where does that leave the millions and millions of dollars invested in those treatment. God help the Pharmaceuticals and the Gov't. Please let all the trails run and will see the truth once and for all. Let the best treatment win. Burzynski way or Chemo.

[Donnella]

I also forgot to mention the other clinical trails the FDA will not run. It is called Low Dose Naltrexone and Alpha Lipoic Acid. There has been cures of Pancreatic and Liver Cancers and many other illness have had great benefited by the use of this treatment, such as MS, Parkingson and the list go's on. The reason being there is no great amounts of profits to be made by the Pharmaceuticals as the drug is very cheap and has very little side effects. Once more what is the FDA scared of?
DO THE CLINICAL TRAILS.

[Bronze Dog]

He's been at the clinical trials for decades, and still no recorded results aside from sales-friendly testimonials. Real researchers don't take that long to get through all three phases, and yet Burzynski's been stuck in the middle of the process for 30 years or so. Another big problem is that he's biased his results by forcing patients to pay for the privilege to be experimented on. Real researchers try to avoid charging their patients, and they don't promise results, just that they'll try. Also, how would the evil overlords know it's worth "stealing" without results? A lot of Burzynski's Ayn Randian followers sure seem more worried about his profit potential than they are with figuring out if it works or not.

Think about what you say, Donnella. Burzynski's throwing up lots of red flags, but you're ignoring them. It's a textbook con game.

If anyone's sabotaging Burzynski's research, it's Burzynski.

[Nico]

I'm sorry Donella but I have to disagree, the FDA doesn't have to test every claim it gets. Its going to need evidence. Burzynski has no good evidence his treatment works.

Also, if his treatment worked and he had evidence he could disprove the blogger instead of threatening to sue him.

[Darth Cynic]

The FDA to the best of my knowledge don't steal ideas because they have no need, they don't produce anything they are merely a regulatory agency.

Also, the treatment is not an alternative to chemo it is chemo, the only difference are the fancy drapes being used to obscure this.

Orac has far more extensive material on it all, you should check here.