[Big Mac]

Guys I just saw a documentary that makes me question everything about health care, cancer treatment, the motives of the FDA, etc. I'm not saying I take everything in this documentary as absolute truth, but it's very compelling and frightening. Why haven't I learned about this doctor and his lifesaving work until now? And why have governments, Texas and federal, tried repeatedly to ruin him, shut him down, put him in prison for life, and then, after that utterly failed, proceeded to steal his work-his patents-that they were trying to discredit for so long? What is going on here? Is this the biggest medical cover up/scandal in the last 30 years? Was this the cancer breakthrough of the 20th Century that no one bothered to pay attention to because it didn't suit the business interests of the pharmaceutical companies and their handmaiden, the FDA?

He's been curing many patients of cancer for the last 30 years, but I haven't heard the name Dr. Burzynski or the anti-neoplaston therapy he invented until watching this documentary on Netflix last week:

Dr Burzynski Movie: Cancer is Big Business (2011) (FULL VERSION) - YouTube

OMG. My grandmother had very painful unnecessary cancer surgery followed by radiation and died (likely of cancer and her other ailments) in 2009. I think Dr. Burzynski could have helped her. Do you think SJ knew anything about this incredible guy? WTF? Btw, in the reviews I've read, the documentary has been criticized because it's not entertaining enough and tries to pack too much factual content in!

[Waragainstsleep]

You're being sarcastic right?

[Big Mac]

Uh, no. Do you know a lot about this doctor and his work? If so I'd love to hear your knowledge on the topic. If the claims made in the movie aren't close to being true, please point that out to me.

But if you're not familiar with this story, I'd suggest watching the movie with an open mind.

[ghporter]

There are two issues going on here. Burzynski and his associates do their work under the auspices of HIS "Burzynski Research Institute" in Houston, and have yet to meet the standards for peer review and acceptance in the field, in part because they haven't managed to produce a study that is sufficiently well designed and executed that it makes the field accept that Burzynski's ideas are of merit.

There are a lot of published researchers in all fields who manage one "big paper" and get name recognition from that paper, but never do anything more than get press for "Dr. Jones, author of "A Study of Paper Cuts and Mechanisms of Neurological Impacts," opined that the new look at glaucoma in Smith's study lacks merit because..." These fuddy-duddy opinions may or may not have merit, but in practice they wind up either cutting down or building up the researcher they comment on by power of their prior publication instead of the solidity of their commentary. There is a lot of "Burzynski is full of bull" in the literature, and I believe (totally personal opinion here) that a good part of it is of this sort-"I haven't published anything new in 30 years, but I'm going to get my name in the press by tearing down someone who at least writes new papers."

M.D. Anderson, one of the leading international cancer research hospitals, is located in Houston, and from my experience in health care in Texas, I can tell you that the researchers there are not afraid of new ideas or new approaches. It is a definite negative that Burzynski has not gotten support from M. D. Anderson, but this may also have to do with grant money; the grant writers and grant providers have a huge input into what subjects get funded, and if providers are shy of "out of the box" ideas, or the grant writers (the people who write the applications-it's actually something of a specialty) think they're not likely to get anything out of the considerable effort needed to put together a grant application for a given idea, then the money isn't going to be available. It may be that Burzynski's studies only need better funding to make them unassailable (and thus either make the rest of the community shut up and accept him or at least stop blocking his work), but I haven't been able to look at his studies enough to say. In any case, outside funding is crucial to acceptance; if NIH does not provide even a small grant it just plain "looks bad."

Unfortunately, the word "cancer" makes it seem like whether it's in the brain or the bowel, it's all the same disease. It is not. even cancers of the same organ in two different people can behave very differently. Grant providers often lack sufficient technical expertise to see "this study, limited though it was, showed that tumors of this organ in this situation were reduced in size with good or neutral outcomes for all study participants" as indicating success. Providers that do have this level of expertise are typically fully committed and not ready to accept new applications... It does come down to money on this side of the issue.

On the other hand, FDA has several things in play that keep it from embracing Burzynski's work. First, FDA has been burned by how the fast track system has been operated, and "fast track" is hardly as fast as it was ten years ago. Then there's the fact that FDA doesn't do much research itself; in fact their primary research is in validating or verifying data provided by actual researchers in FDA-managed studies. These inquiries are really more of a "how can we show due diligence in accepting this report?" than anything else. The real research is done by Big Pharma and major research universities.

Now for the part that I think shoots down the idea that anyone is actively suppressing Burzynski's work for a profit motive: if his work is actually that effective in its current state, then Big Pharma would be beating down his door for the rights to develop (and CASH IN on) it. A real cancer cure would be ENORMOUSLY profitable. Something that reversed tumor growth, that blocked neoplastic development, that prevented malignant excursions, or even stopped the growth of existing tumors would be such a money maker (think of how much money big drug companies make out of treatments for erectile dysfunction-wouldn't a life saving intervention be even more profitable?) that it would be inconceivable that the suits and bean counters would be in the practice of suppressing anything like an effective cancer treatment.

I think that attempts to take his work are more likely a veiled compliment than anything else. And as I've mentioned, documenting one's research thoroughly and meticulously is imperative in doing good studies-without a significant paper trail to establish the ethical and legally substantiated basis for subject selection, informed consent and progress documentation, a researcher can indeed get into serious legal trouble. Failures to fully comply with ever increasing ethical requirements in building and conducting research are valid reasons to charge researchers with all sorts of crimes, especially when one is dealing with treatments for diseases that can kill the research subjects, which makes those subjects very vulnerable to manipulation, and thus very much in the eye of the courts.

My bottom line is that Dr. Burzynski's work is not sufficiently broadly applicable, is not well enough documented, and is not thoroughly enough vetted by researchers outside of his institute that, while he is successful with many patients, he doesn't have the actual traction needed to progress. It would take big improvements in at least two of those three conditions for him to get enough into the public eye (or at least the eye of the grant providers) that he can finally do deep enough, long-term enough and broad enough research that is accepted as being both valid and convincing.

I will not believe the suggestion that "this researcher is onto something that can help all of humanity, but I don't like him so I'll ensure that the entire medical community wrecks everything he does." I don't think there's enough tinfoil in the world to manage that sort of conspiracy. But I can see that anyone outside of health research could put a number of factual pieces of this puzzle together and conclude that this is the case. I can't agree, because there is so much more going on in all research, that simple vendetta or worse the suggestion that there's some profit in blocking a real cure to cancer could possibly be behind the breadth and depth of Dr. Burzynski's story.

[Big Mac]

Excellent reply as I assumed I'd get from you, Glenn, thank you. I have to read it fully to take in all the points, but I want to ask, aside from what you know of the matter generally (and I'm sure being in Texas you've seen the local coverage of his situation that those of us outside the state aren't as familiar with), have you watched the film? Have you looked at all the various underhanded tricks Texas and the feds have allegedly pulled on this doctor? The most damning thing to me is that after failing to put in him prison for life, one of his researchers stabbed him in the back, went on the government payroll and proceeded to patent his medications-even citing Dr. Burzynski as having done previous research when it was his work in its entirety.

Maybe I'm gullible in this respect, but the evidence the film presents of the efficacy of Dr. Burzynski's treatments is highly compelling to me. Supposedly the last hurdle in Stage 3 FDA clinical trials-mainly the 10s of millions of dollars needed to fund them.

[Thorzdad]

If the only information you're getting is from this movie (and websites cheering/promoting the movie) I would suggest that you probably aren't getting unbiased information. I mean, would you take the facts and allegations presented in a Michael Moore movie as unassailable truth?

[Big Mac]

No, but Michael Moore doesn't provide the level of hard facts, the quoted citations of this film. And I haven't seen anyone try to debunk the source material presented. As I said the big criticism of this movie is that it has too many facts and isn't entertaining enough. Have you heard about this doctor before, Thorzdad?

[Thorzdad]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

No, but Michael Moore doesn't provide the level of hard facts, the quoted citations of this film...

Well...According to you. There are many, many zealots who would argue differently. But, that's a deflection...

What does it matter if I've heard of this doctor? That's a red herring. I'm simply asking if you've done any further verification of his claims. Or, are you basing your response solely on this movie and websites promoting it?

[Big Mac]

I'm not trying to argue. I haven't done scholarly research to verify the citations in the films. Medical research isn't inside my field of expertise. All I can say is, the material as presented is very convincing-not that I believe it completely, but that it's very convincing. And that I have yet to see the film debunked in any respect. I'm asking everyone if they've heard of Dr. Burzynski before because I had not, even though the federal government has tried unsuccessfully to destroy him for his work. I'm just astonished that I had not heard his name until now.

[Thorzdad]

Gotcha. My bad.
No, I haven't heard of him. However, I am very familiar with propaganda techniques in film making, and the claims being made...like the government trying to destroy him...definitely smell of the facts being distorted to create an impression advantageous to the subject.

Anywho...Interesting stuff.

[Waragainstsleep]

I've heard of him. His name came up a few times on a site I was trolling after SJ died and a crazy scumbag hippy posted an article about how he had been killed by chemotherapy and not cancer.
The people raising his name and work were also conspiracy-minded, foil hat brigade happy clappers who seem to think there is a universal cure for everything growing from the tree of life in the middle of the rainforest and that big pharma, the FDA, the mainstream media and Lee Harvey Oswald are all conspiring with Elvis to keep it hidden from 'sheep like the rest of us who can't see or refuse to accept the truth'.

The people talking about him were the first red flag. A very quick search online was enough to undermine the credibility of his medical degree and his research.

Stanislaw Burzynski and "Antineoplastons"

[Waragainstsleep]

I forgot to mention the aliens.

[Waragainstsleep]

There is a good rule of thumb with these sorts or "treatments"

If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

As Glenn points out, the suppression conspiracy ideas fall at the first hurdle, especially with cancer being pretty much the biggest killer of all. Even if there were somehow some logic to suppression in the US, the researchers could always come to the UK where the NHS would love to save any money it can.

[Wiskedjak]

I once met an old German guy who claimed he had found the cure for AIDS when he was shot down over Africa during WWII and had to live with a native tribe for several months. He also claimed to have been persecuted by the government for his knowledge and was seeking out investors. All he needed was a few million dollars to properly document and sell the cure.

A few months later he tried to sign me up to Amway ...

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Thorzdad 

Gotcha. My bad.
No, I haven't heard of him. However, I am very familiar with propaganda techniques in film making, and the claims being made...like the government trying to destroy him...definitely smell of the facts being distorted to create an impression advantageous to the subject.

Anywho...Interesting stuff.

Persecution claims are a great way to build sympathy from like-minded individuals without having to actually prove your claims. It also helps if you *appear* to present cited and referenced evidence; like-minded individuals are less inclined to attempt to validate your claims if they are previously inclined to believe you.

[Big Mac]

The federal government charged this doctor with so many criminal charges (over 40) that if convicted of them all, he would have gotten a life sentence. They tried to convict him twice before dropping all but one charge, which they then dropped. So the government persecution he faced from Texas and the feds is real, unless someone can refute all the news coverage done on the controversy.

[Wiskedjak]

But, was he persecuted or prosecuted?

[Big Mac]

Both, as far as I can see. They had no legitimate reason to repeatedly harass him like that and imperil his life, especially in the face of his documented success and impassioned pleas from people he saved with his treatments.

[Waragainstsleep]

Lets call them what they are: "People who either believe or claim that he saved them with his treatments"

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Guys I just saw a documentary that makes me question everything about health care, cancer treatment, the motives of the FDA, etc. I'm not saying I take everything in this documentary as absolute truth, but it's very compelling and frightening. Why haven't I learned about this doctor and his lifesaving work until now? And why have governments, Texas and federal, tried repeatedly to ruin him, shut him down, put him in prison for life, and then, after that utterly failed, proceeded to steal his work-his patents-that they were trying to discredit for so long? What is going on here? Is this the biggest medical cover up/scandal in the last 30 years? Was this the cancer breakthrough of the 20th Century that no one bothered to pay attention to because it didn't suit the business interests of the pharmaceutical companies and their handmaiden, the FDA?

He's been curing many patients of cancer for the last 30 years, but I haven't heard the name Dr. Burzynski or the anti-neoplaston therapy he invented until watching this documentary on Netflix last week:

Dr Burzynski Movie: Cancer is Big Business (2011) (FULL VERSION) - YouTube

OMG. My grandmother had very painful unnecessary cancer surgery followed by radiation and died (likely of cancer and her other ailments) in 2009. I think Dr. Burzynski could have helped her. Do you think SJ knew anything about this incredible guy? WTF? Btw, in the reviews I've read, the documentary has been criticized because it's not entertaining enough and tries to pack too much factual content in!

Every thing changed 30 years ago when business took over the US government. This does not surprise me at all. I have to watch it. But everything doctors know are taught to them by universities. University funding and teaching material comes from private interest groups and corportations. Doctors are supplied drug samples and given good rates to be loyal with the drugs the companies want sell and get kick backs for them. And the public goes in asking for drugs from the commercials they see advertising them. Its a self interest business where profit motivates the treatment. Longer term treatment is more valuble for research then cures.

[iMOTOR]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Now for the part that I think shoots down the idea that anyone is actively suppressing Burzynski's work for a profit motive: if his work is actually that effective in its current state, then Big Pharma would be beating down his door for the rights to develop (and CASH IN on) it. A real cancer cure would be ENORMOUSLY profitable.

I have to disagree with you on this one. I don’t think that the pharmaceutical industry bears to profit more or even as much from curing a disease in one shot than they do from maintaining a certain perceived level of health over a persons lifetime. I know a family that pays aprox. 800 a month in insurance for their kid’s schizophrenia medication. Let’s say that the medication started at age 10, and the kid makes it to age sixty, and that the $800 a month covers the cost of the medication, then that adds up to $480,000 over the lifetime of the patient. Add to that the fact that some new drug may be introduced in the future that treats the symptoms of the disease better at a higher cost. Granted, there are no doubt plenty of people who would pay half a million to cure their disease in one treatment, but do you really think the industry could sustain that price long term. Certainly over time, that treatment would have to come down to a more reasonable price, like say $100,000. And once you cure the disease, that’s it, no more money.

[Athens]

Watching the first 20 minutes of it I can already say I like what his research is about. Every day of your life you are dealing with cancer cells in your body. But the body deals with them on its own. Its only when something that deals with them, the immune system starts to fail that the tumors become uncontrollable cancer. His research deals with this.

[Athens]

The problem is there isn't enough proof that it works and hes being prevented from actually proving it. But need to be careful because alternative treatments can easily be a mistake for people too. Steve Jobs is a classic example of this. His wait on surgery might have killed him. But at the same time to protect the business its easy for doctors like this to be prevented from proving there cases.

The data shown in the video show that more people got cured but not every one. 11 out of 40. So its not a cure all but its a better solution.

Its like the AZT treatments for HIV. Its now accepted that AZT was the cause of the high death rates in the 80s and early 90s. Current treatments are allowing HIV people to live decades now.

[imitchellg5]

It's not in the FDA's best interest to cure cancer. Sadly.

[Waragainstsleep]

The price of prescription drugs is strongly affected by the volume you can shift, same as any other commodity. Cancer affects 1 in 3 people these days at some point in their lives and its likely this figure will increase as we all live longer while continuing to pollute the planet with carcinogens and toxins and various untested combinations of nano particles. That gives you potentially 30 million plus customers per year and rising. This is more than enough to tempt any [pharmaceutical] company.

Anyone who had truly discovered a cure for cancer would find a way to get it tested, by hell or high water. Instead, this guy is selling his quackery from his own institute and making movies to drive up publicity about it.

[Waragainstsleep]

Also, you are all making judgements based solely on the US system. Other countries are capable of doing research too and once there is proper proof of a working cure the FDA will struggle to argue for long.

If it were me, I would stop at nothing to prove my cure worked to everyone else. Anyone who cures cancer once and for all will go down in history as one of the greatest humans of all time. You'd be set for life. If I couldn't get the research done in university hospital, I'd go to Africa and enlist a warlord to fund me if thats what it takes. Too many lives are at stake to simply build a clinic and start turning a profit.

Has he asked Bill Gates for some cash?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Its like the AZT treatments for HIV. Its now accepted that AZT was the cause of the high death rates in the 80s and early 90s. Current treatments are allowing HIV people to live decades now.

Are you sure about this? The wiki page on AZT basically says the exact opposite.

Zidovudine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Watching the first 20 minutes of it I can already say I like what his research is about. Every day of your life you are dealing with cancer cells in your body. But the body deals with them on its own. Its only when something that deals with them, the immune system starts to fail that the tumors become uncontrollable cancer. His research deals with this.

The idea that you can get your own immune system to cure you of cancer while not a bad idea for research is a staple of the tin foil hat and hippy health guru crowd. Part of the problem with cancer is that since it is comprised of your own cells, it tends to be left alone by your immune system.
I'm not sure how many cancerous cells the body actually deals with successfully. How would we even know if they are being dealt with before they become harmful? There would be very little evidence they were ever there. Perhaps GH has more to offer on this particular detail.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The federal government charged this doctor with so many criminal charges (over 40) that if convicted of them all, he would have gotten a life sentence. They tried to convict him twice before dropping all but one charge, which they then dropped. So the government persecution he faced from Texas and the feds is real, unless someone can refute all the news coverage done on the controversy.

That's exactly how it would go down if he was a snake oil salesman and the powers that be wanted to stop him from taking advantage of the desperate by selling them placebos. It would be a hard case to make, beyond a reasonable doubt and whatnot, and likely would only result in postponing his activities, not preventing them.

Just sayin'

[Waragainstsleep]

When it comes to curing cancer, I'd be ecstatic to be proved wrong, but this guy like most of the others is a shameless charlatan praying on the vulnerable and the gullible to line his own pockets.

[el chupacabra]

Some more links about Burznski. What it comes down to is the government just can't stand that a small shop guy has come up with such breakthrough technology and not one of their back patting pet corporations. This goes against the communist ideal that their trying to move to. If you type "burznski scam" on google you wont get much criticism of him; If you type "Godaddy scam" or proflowers scam, on google you will get much more.

Life Extension Magazine June 1997

Is Dr Stanislaw Burzynski a scam?

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

The idea that you can get your own immune system to cure you of cancer while not a bad idea for research is a staple of the tin foil hat and hippy health guru crowd. Part of the problem with cancer is that since it is comprised of your own cells, it tends to be left alone by your immune system.

In laymens terms...
Your immune system does fight cancer. Its very good at it and is fighting cancer in you constantly. This is long established knowledge by now. When cells become cancerous your immune system is called to trigger apoptosis on the cell. When the rate at which cancer cells are forming exceeds the rate of immune response; the person has cancer. There are many things that can increase the rate of cancer growth or slow down the immune response leading to cancer. Example: Lets say you're girlfriend sits in the sun for several hours a week trying to work on her tan. If she survives this, she will be ugly with gator skin as she ages. Whats happening here is the sun is damaging the DNA in her skin cells. When the immune system detects that DNA damage has occurred it kills all those cells as efficiently as it can before they start replicating uncontrollably. In a person's younger years there is enough semantic stem cells available to replenish the dead skin cells allowing the person to continue to look young. As the person ages however stem cells become depleted and lose their ability to replace dead cells as quickly. Older damaged cells end up doing the work of what used to be multiple cells; the aging effect.

So it makes sense that you could find a way to accelerate the immune response to cancer since it is already expert in targeting cancer cells anyway.

When it comes to curing cancer, I'd be ecstatic to be proved wrong, but this guy like most of the others is a shameless charlatan praying on the vulnerable and the gullible to line his own pockets.

He doesn't claim to have found a cure to cancer in general. But instead a cure that works sometimes on a few specific types of cancer. I wouldn't be so quick to judge him harshly considering there is no disputing this claim. He really has cured people and FDA investigations have proven it. Even if hes only cured 4% of patients (just made that up)... That's a huge statement validating his work, since once established, cancer never just cures itself.

The government's problem with him, according to them, isn't that he is a charlatan, but that he hasn't conformed to their standards of drug administration and testing.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Also, you are all making judgements based solely on the US system. Other countries are capable of doing research too and once there is proper proof of a working cure the FDA will struggle to argue for long.

If it were me, I would stop at nothing to prove my cure worked to everyone else. Anyone who cures cancer once and for all will go down in history as one of the greatest humans of all time. You'd be set for life. If I couldn't get the research done in university hospital, I'd go to Africa and enlist a warlord to fund me if thats what it takes. Too many lives are at stake to simply build a clinic and start turning a profit.

Has he asked Bill Gates for some cash?

Its not a cure its just got a much better sucess rate. And which country? Canada? Nope Health Canada takes directions from the Harper Government which takes its directions from the US Government which takes its directions from Industry. UK? Well the quesiton is how long would it take for him to get hired by the UK government to be in a position to do such studies in the UK. The problem is the same almost any where he goes. He wouldn't be able to conduct studies in other countries with out first immigrating and getting licenced.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Are you sure about this? The wiki page on AZT basically says the exact opposite.

Zidovudine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No it dosen't. It leaves out the deaths related to it from drug toxicity but says nothing that is the opposite to what I said. Closest thing that comes close is that under current treatments it uses a much lower dose.

The time between the first demonstration that AZT was active against HIV in the laboratory and its approval was 25 months, one of the shortest periods of drug development in recent history.
AZT was subsequently approved as a preventive treatment in 1990. It was initially administered in much higher dosages than today, typically 400 mg every four hours (even at night). However, the paucity of alternatives for treating AIDS at that time affected the risk/benefit ratio, with the certain mortality of HIV infection outweighing the risk of drug toxicity.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

The idea that you can get your own immune system to cure you of cancer while not a bad idea for research is a staple of the tin foil hat and hippy health guru crowd. Part of the problem with cancer is that since it is comprised of your own cells, it tends to be left alone by your immune system.
I'm not sure how many cancerous cells the body actually deals with successfully. How would we even know if they are being dealt with before they become harmful? There would be very little evidence they were ever there. Perhaps GH has more to offer on this particular detail.

The immune system is what is responsible for keeping cancer cells in check. Cancer becomes a problem when the Immune system stops doing that.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

When it comes to curing cancer, I'd be ecstatic to be proved wrong, but this guy like most of the others is a shameless charlatan praying on the vulnerable and the gullible to line his own pockets.

You have yet to offer any proof of what your saying. Show me the numbers. Show me something that says his research is wrong. Show me something that says to that effect that he is praying on vulnerable people. The science behind his methods are based on factual information and the method seems sound. The only thing lacking is larger trials to prove with out a doubt it works.

[Athens]

Here is some results of trials done in Japan

CCSB.ORG Antineoplastons

Just search for Japan on that page to narrow it down to the results.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Excellent reply as I assumed I'd get from you, Glenn, thank you. I have to read it fully to take in all the points, but I want to ask, aside from what you know of the matter generally (and I'm sure being in Texas you've seen the local coverage of his situation that those of us outside the state aren't as familiar with), have you watched the film? Have you looked at all the various underhanded tricks Texas and the feds have allegedly pulled on this doctor? The most damning thing to me is that after failing to put in him prison for life, one of his researchers stabbed him in the back, went on the government payroll and proceeded to patent his medications-even citing Dr. Burzynski as having done previous research when it was his work in its entirety.

Maybe I'm gullible in this respect, but the evidence the film presents of the efficacy of Dr. Burzynski's treatments is highly compelling to me. Supposedly the last hurdle in Stage 3 FDA clinical trials-mainly the 10s of millions of dollars needed to fund them.

I've looked at a few snippets. What I got mostly was the angle the film was made from-that everyone was horrible to the doctor in spite of his groundbreaking work, etc... In other words, it was (though well done) very slanted. I did not watch all of it for that reason. One cannot get a reasonably evenhanded impression of any issue from cheerleaders for or against some aspect of that issue. I did some research on the doctor though, and found quite a lot both for and against. And while both he and I are in Texas, I had never heard of him until your post. Considering how big cancer research is here in San Antonio, there are some names and institutions that are well known. His is not.

As I pointed out, not all cancers are the same, and no two people react the same way to either their disease or a treatment. He may have cured lots of people, but I did not see any solid reporting of his success rates, nor any useful information about his overall outcomes. Without that information, it's just not possible to say "he had a lot of success" or "he had some success with really challenging cases." Or even "he was a fraud." There just isn't enough (freely available) data to decide either way.

The government of the State of Texas is built around businesses, and it has taken a lot of work to get consumer and patient protections into the law books. I'm not going to sit through a whole nearly two hour long film to pick at its points, but to say that a state used "underhanded tricks" to do things that were against the interests of a particular individual is pretty naive, since Texas can use all sorts of very overt and powerful tools against a physician who is practicing in a manner that can be suggested to be not in the best interests of the public.

As I said, the film is intentionally sensational, and the whole subject of the doctor and his work is very much under-reported. Or maybe not really newsworthy. Either way, taking the film at face value, without sufficient background information to put it in perspective, isn't a good way to understand the subject in any context, technical or not.

[Athens]

@ghporter

I watched a bout 80% of it. It was worth it. It does change to useful information on his work, and also goes into great detail of the legal battles including news broadcasts of his cases against the state and some remarkable info against the FDA. The film could have been done much better because there is a lot of "cheerleading" which almost put me off too. I don't disagree with you but I have a had time ignoring the film. I got to get to work but I will elaborate later and post snippets of the films key sections outside of the sensationalism.

[olePigeon]

I first heard of him on the Doctor Dean Edell show. None of his treatments have been reproduced successfully outside of his own clinic. None of his claims of curing cancer have been verifiable. On a purely scientific basis, his claims are nonsense.

The man is a trickster and a huckster. He takes advantage of vulnerable people in dire need by offering them false hope, then takes their money.

[Athens]

Japan did.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I first heard of him on the Doctor Dean Edell show. None of his treatments have been reproduced successfully outside of his own clinic. None of his claims of curing cancer have been verifiable. On a purely scientific basis, his claims are nonsense.

That's not in line with the documented evidence presented in the film.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Japan did.

Japan did nothing. The extent of the testing was limited to Phase I clinical trials or their equivalent, it is to simply check if it is dangerous to people. The other two tests were under Burzynski's team. So again, none of his claims have been successfully reproduce outside of his team or clinic.

If you want to see what real science is producing, and what doctors are genuinely excited about, read this: HIV Used to Fight Cancer : Discovery News

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

That's not in line with the documented evidence presented in the film.

Fine, when you get cancer, go visit the quack. Worked out great for Steve Jobs.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Fine, when you get cancer, go visit the quack. Worked out great for Steve Jobs.

And can you show the proof that Jobs visited him?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Japan did nothing. The extent of the testing was limited to Phase I clinical trials or their equivalent, it is to simply check if it is dangerous to people. The other two tests were under Burzynski's team. So again, none of his claims have been successfully reproduce outside of his team or clinic.

If you want to see what real science is producing, and what doctors are genuinely excited about, read this: HIV Used to Fight Cancer : Discovery News

Thats funny because even under phase 1 the results did show a better rate of improvement then traditional methods. On top of that the clients used in the clinical trials right now under Burzynski are those that have tried and failed traditional methods and considering the number of those who improve under his care which already failed traditional methods one must ask what the rate would be on every one not just the picked worst cases of no hopes.

[Uncle Skeleton]

That type of irrational optimism is exactly why product tests lacking sufficient statistical power are considered exploitative of the dying and vulnerable. It's an easy sell if either you have no skin in the game or no alternative. But when it comes time to pay the piper, you remember why statistics were invented in the first place.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Athens 

No it dosen't. It leaves out the deaths related to it from drug toxicity but says nothing that is the opposite to what I said. Closest thing that comes close is that under current treatments it uses a much lower dose.

You said:

Originally Posted by Athens 

Its like the AZT treatments for HIV. Its now accepted that AZT was the cause of the high death rates in the 80s and early 90s. Current treatments are allowing HIV people to live decades now.

Wikipedia says:

AZT use was a major breakthrough in AIDS therapy in the 1990s that significantly altered the course of the illness and helped destroy the notion that HIV/AIDS was a death sentence.

And:

Zidovudine is included in the World Health Organization's "Essential Drugs List", which is a list of minimum medical needs for a basic health care system.

It makes no mention of AZT being blamed for deaths in the 80s and 90s other than its toxicity which you have pointed out is only an issue because it kept patients alive long enough for it to become a problem.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That type of irrational optimism is exactly why product tests lacking sufficient statistical power are considered exploitative of the dying and vulnerable. It's an easy sell if either you have no skin in the game or no alternative. But when it comes time to pay the piper, you remember why statistics were invented in the first place.

Ya but how often does the FDA do everything it can to block proper testing in the first place. Half the story is the doctor and the method. The other half is the FDA and how its doing everything it can to protect its profits.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

You said:


Wikipedia says:


And:


It makes no mention of AZT being blamed for deaths in the 80s and 90s other than its toxicity which you have pointed out is only an issue because it kept patients alive long enough for it to become a problem.

And its mostly banned from use in Canada and the US except for pregnant woman because short term usage is deemed acceptable enough to prevent the spread of HIV from mom to baby and for special cases it ends up in low doses in HAART. I'll update the Wikipedia Article later with correct information when I get home.