This is one of those articles that makes me so sad, because I know what it’s like to have a family member diagnosed with cancer, and I know what it’s like to watch a family member or friend pass away from an illness that can’t be cured. It’s scary, and upsetting, and difficult, and if someone tells you there is a cure, you want to leap at the chance and grab it with both hands. When you find someone that purports to have a cure, of course, you don’t want to look for things that will disagree with or debunk that cure. Unfortunately, when those things exist, it’s not always the best course to ignore them – hope is valuable, but false hope is cruel and devastating.

I first encountered Burzynski when a women called Laura Hymas began fundraising to receive treatment at his clinic. I wrote a post about the value of hope, and Burzynski himself at the time. As time has passed, more people appear to be finding Burzynski, perhaps inspired by others they have seen in articles like this, and the post (http://www.zenbuffy.com/2011/05/how-much-does-hope-cost/) seems more relevant than ever.

To the people who have linked the Burzynski documentary as proof that the cure works, or that it is being suppressed by “big pharma”, I would point out that the movie was produced, directed, written, and edited by one man, Eric Merola, who is a friend of Burzynski. This is not an independent documentary, it’s a long advertisement. I would also ask you to consider whether the fact that someone is famous or has a movie about them automatically makes them more credible – many popular celebrities have, for example, continued to tell people not to vaccinate their children, cleaving to evidence that has been comprehensively refuted. This dangerous misrepresentation of information has resulted in a large increase in the number of children suffering from measles, a disease we once thought we were close to eradicating completely.

How much would you pay for hope? £75,000? How about $140,000? Maybe €120,000? Given a life-threatening illness, or a chance to completely change your circumstances, I’d guess that most people would say that hope is priceless, and that they would pay anything, and indeed, everything, for that chance at hope. The fact that hope is priceless often comes up when discussing medical treatments, particularly those for terminally ill people. Skeptics are often decried as horrible people who aim to steal hope from people when they debunk various quack treatments, dangerous cults, or weird beliefs; in many cases, these quack treatments have successfully preyed on very vulnerable people who are trying to fight something that we probably all fear – an early, or untimely, death. And who are we, the nameless, soulless skeptic, to come and tear this last hope from the hands of the dying?

Well, in answer, I’d first like to turn my initial question around – we all probably have a good idea of exactly how much we’d pay for that last dash of hope, but how much do you suppose you’d charge for it? An assertion oft put forward by proponents of alternative medicine, for example, is that there are cheap and effective treatments available for many life-threatening conditions, such as cancer and AIDS, but that because the molecule can’t be patented, “big pharma” can’t make a profit, and therefore isn’t interested. It is lucky for us, therefore, that these renegade magicians are available to offer this cure, at this extremely cheap price, to everyone, profit-free. Oh, wait. That’s not quite right. Actually, each “cheap and effective” cure that “big pharma” ignores because it can’t turn a profit is usually bundled up with some appropriate pseudo-science sounding nonsense, perhaps tacked to someone with a dubious qualification, and usually offered to the public at the phenomenal price of approximately €yourLifeSavings.

Burzynski’s antineoplastons have been in clinical trials since he first conceived them as a cancer treatment. These trials have yet to prove that they are in any way effective. Independent studies failed to replicate Burzynski’s results. Dr Howard Ozer of the Allegheny Cancer Center in Philadelphia, called the research “scientific nonsense”. The FDA haven’t approved the treatment for any diseases. Burzynski has been convicted of fraud for claiming money from insurance companies for false cancer treatments. The evidence does not do much to raise hopes for hopeless people, but to ignore it does no one any good.

Pedalling false hope is a charlatans game, practised by the lowest of the low. They prey on people who have found themselves in desperate situations, and who have found themselves low on hope. They take advantage of vulnerable people, and leave them financially destitute, and once again, hopeless. Sometimes, the nonsense they sell (whether it is a physical product, or the promise of the metaphysical divine) is so laughable that it’s easy to forget that it’s not a victimless crime.

I can only suggest that anyone who truly wishes to help cure the diseases which rob us of friends, relatives, and loved ones, should donate to a respected and established charity or trust, or even donate time to help care for those who are dealing with these illnesses. Medical science is making huge advances, and diseases once thought deadly are now treatable, and in some cases, curable. As for the rest, we’ll get there. I hope that Sean manages to find a cure, because for anyone to be robbed of life so young is a truly sad thing.

Whenever I think of Burzynski or read another article about him, I am reminded of a poem by Emily Dickinson, which I studied in school. It is called “Hope is the thing with feathers”, and for me, it has always spoken right to the heart of hope itself – it never stops, it is not abashed, and it asks for nothing.

Hope is the thing with feathers
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune–without the words,
And never stops at all,

And sweetest in the gale is heard;
And sore must be the storm
That could abash the little bird
That kept so many warm.

I’ve heard it in the chillest land,
And on the strangest sea;
Yet, never, in extremity,
It asked a crumb of me

My heart goes out to Sean and his family, I can’t imagine how tough it must be to go through something like this, and I really hope he manages to recover, whatever treatment he undertakes.

For people asking for specifics on why Burzynski is seen as a con artist, here is an article on which outlines the problems with Burzynski’s treatment: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski1.html

In the 90s Burzynski was convicted by the state of Texas of advertising a cancer treatment with no proven results and was ordered to stop advertising his treatment as a cure for cancer until it could be proven that it worked.(Source: http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/News/burzynski.html) In 1995, a grand jury charged Burzynski with 75 counts of criminal contempt, mail fraud, and violations of the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act and in 1998 the courts ruled against him, with the jury saying “Dr. Burzynski’s own testimony demonstrates that the FDA notified him in February 1984 that it found deficiencies in his [drug approval] application and required additional data. He candidly admits that he has neither provided the data requested nor explained to the FDA his reasons for considering that data unnecessary.” (Details: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski2.html http://openjurist.org/819/f2d/1301/united-states-v-burzynski-cancer-research-institute-r http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/News/burzynski.html )

He’s been running his treatment as “clinical trials” for at least a couple of decades now, and the vast majority of them are still in phase II testing to prove if they have any beneficial effect at all (with the accusation that they might even have skipped over phase I to prove that they’re safe. See http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski2.html). Three different experts in clinical trial setup found that “Clinical trials conducted by [Dr.] Burzynski are poorly designed and unlikely to produce interpretable results”. Another review found that because of how the trials were set up “[Dr. Burzynski's] data can never be useful to show true merit or lack of merit of his drug”.

I dont know anything about this guy or his "cure"
I just hope this young man gets what ever he needs to help him

My wide passed away from the same tumour in 2009.if this guy has hope then please don’t take it away from him. from all the research i’ve done this is a real shot in the dark,but it’s still a shot so hopefully he gets there.from my first hand experience with this type of tumour though ,November is too far away

I have been following this debate for a while. It breaks my heart to read of a case like this, and I do have personal experience of how horrible it is. My mother died of cancer last year.

I have just been reading Cancer Research UK’s website, for their comments on the treatment at question here.

http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/cancer-questions/what-is-antineoplaston-therapy

As well as false hope, this treatment offers some extremely distressing side-effects, up to and including seizures. So in addition to going through a treatment which in 35 years of trials has yet to produce any solid evidence in its favour, as well as time, money, and having to deal with the actual disease that you will in all probability not be helped with, you run the risk of suffering further.

I don’t think anyone should give up hope. But hope in the right things.

I don’t know if this lad is right or wrong but I do know there is no such thing as a cure for cancer. They could possibly get his cancer to go into remission and eventually he’d be disease free and here’s hoping it works for him and it’s not a scam.

I’ve asked myself previously about the information in the film, as this is not the first time I’ve seen it referenced as proof, and I believe that the information in the film is untrue. I believe this based on the available evidence provided by sources outside of this film, such as my own reading of the papers published about his treatment, the trials, etc. In addition to the many articles you may have found, you have quite probably overlooked other documentation, such as the published papers on his treatments, details of his fraud conviction, his lack of medical qualifications and possible falsification of academic qualifications, etc. It’s easy to cherry-pick information when you’re only looking to prove one side of the argument. I watched the movie, and read the website, and visited the patient group sites *as well as* reading the scientific papers, the FDA information, the fraud conviction. With all of the information in front of me, I made an informed decision about what I believed to be the truth of the matter. I would encourage you to at least pay lip-service to avoiding confirmation bias by reading some of the links that have been posted here. Otherwise, you’re not really arguing, you’re just advertising.

All of the papers about the treatment are published by Burzynski himself and no independent research facility has been able to replicate the results. The papers are case studies, not trials, and case studies are considered among the weakest forms of evidence. A paper written about a single patient, or a handful of cherry-picked patients is not proof of anything, and the existence of many such papers proves only that Burzynski can type, and nothing more. Case studies are not the same as randomised controlled trials, which are considered the gold-standard for proving the efficacy of a treatment. Burzynski’s treatment has yet to be proven in such a trial – in fact, such a trial has yet to even be completed. Case studies are not proof that you can rely on, and are far too open to exploitation and fudging of data. It was a poor case-study paper that sparked the MMR controversy too.

Anecdotal evidence, news articles, and youtube videos are not proof of something being effective. For something to be effective, it has to be repeatedly proven to be effective in a robust, clinical manner – this is standard for all potential treatments for any illnesses. Claiming that you have a cure for serious illness is, in many countries (including america) not actually legal, and many of Burzynski’s problems (and, indeed, his fraud conviction) relate to the fact that he has advertised this treatment as a cure – something which he is not legally allowed to do until it has been proven.

I’m not saying that the FDA and/or pharmaceutical companies are above reproach – I value skeptical and rational thought, and am very well aware of cases where the they have behaved badly. This, however, does not negate the fact that Burzynski’s treatment is, as of yet, completely unproven and being falsely advertised.

The simple fact of the matter is that I do not know of a single, legitimate treatment that had to advertise itself as “something big pharma don’t want you to know about”. Typically, treatments advertised in this way, and accompanied by hyperbole-filled persecution stories, are either not proven to be effective, or proven to be ineffective. It’s rare that a legitimate product has to set itself up as the persecuted and much maligned underdog in order to gain market share, and rarer still that products advertised as something “big pharma/the man/the govt” don’t want you to know about are actually things that “big pharma/the man/the govt” don’t want you to know about.

In return to your opening question, I’ll ask you one – have you seen aspirin advertised recently as a development that “big pharma” wanted to keep quiet? How about at any point in it’s history or development? How about a more recently developed drug which has proven its effectiveness – have you seen any material claiming that Herceptin is something that “big pharma” don’t want you to know about or can’t make money from and therefore won’t produce?

In short – I make my decisions based on the best evidence available to date, not advertisements or propaganda. If evidence arises which conclusively proves my previous assertions to be incorrect, I will, absolutely, change them. I adjust my beliefs and expectations based on the evidence that I see, even if that evidence contradicts a belief which I perhaps once held dear. To paraphrase Tim Minchin – if you can show me that it works, and how it works, I will spin on a dime and run through the streets proclaiming that we have, at last, a miracle cure.

I’ve read the article and accompanying comments with deep understanding for the different positions shown here.
I lost a dear friend to breast cancer After she rejected ‘conventional’ treatment and put her faith and money in a hands-on healer.
Metastisis to the lungs and brain and a painful death were the results.
Not to mention a bankrupted family.

Dr Burzynski charges a mighty high price for a treament with no proven track record.
How is it independant research has not been able to duplicate his claims?
A cure for any type of cancer would be a God send and I for one would be leery of confiding my money to a treatment with no clinical proof it works.
Having said that, my deepest sympathy goes to this young man and his family in their search for remission from this cancer.

"To SAVE teen SUFFERES life"

The film seemed quite honest to me. But as others have said on here, it is VERY biased. I would be very skeptical of this Dr.

please god he gets enough money to go for this operation anything or whatever gives him hope to get through each day is a help. Don’t give up hope an keep positive.

Thank you to everyone for kind words I know friends and family are thankful for them and for the ones being negative we really don’t need to hear it a saying goes don’t have something nice to say don’t say anything at all use it

It takes a lot of time to debunk sCAM. Nothing I have read or seen inclines me to even suspect this quack might have a cure for cancer. Below is from 30 years ago. So in 30 years this con artist has failed to provide any evidence whatsoever he has, on his own, discovered a cure for cancer.

“In 1982, consultants to the Ontario (Canada) Ministry of Health visited Burzynski’s clinic and reviewed records of twelve patients selected by Burzynski from among the thousands he had treated. According to the OTA report, the Canadian doctors “found no examples of objective response to Antineoplastons.” In 1985, the Canadian Bureau of Prescription Drugs examined the records of Canadian doctors who had treated patients at Dr. Burzynski’s clinic in Houston. Of 36 patients, 32 had died without showing signs of improvement. Of the remaining 4, one patient died after slight improvement, while one patient died after stabilizing for a year. The 2 remaining patients had widespread cancer.”

The video “documentary” is full of the usual nonsense you always get when investigating con artists.

Here’s a link to Quackwatch http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski1.html

Most of the posts here are written by very very silly people. This guy was convicted of medical fraud. There is no scientific basis to his bogus "cure". Read any material NOT written by this quack or his stupid sCAM followers and you will see that.

I don’t know if I actually want to continue in this debate to be honest. The family and patient’s decisions are deeply understandable and, though I stand by my opinions on the matter, I feel increasingly conflicted about my involvement.

Your severe ignorance in this matter is revolting William Grogan. Shame on you for dismissing what might be this boy’s only chance at survival based on your microscopic level of “research” and your obvious suggestibility by a media with an insatiable appetite for controversy.

Do yourself justice and attempt to redeem yourself through some education by those not motivated by $250,000 USD per round of chemo. Watch this documentary on Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0ibsoqjPac

In 2008, the US FDA (the body with oversight of the medical establishment) issued a “warning letter” to this “clinic”. The following are some extracts. See how often the clinic referred to as the “IRB” failed to do their research properly. This is an extract. The entire letter is on the FDA website. To quickly read this, just read the sentence iimmediately after the paragraph number which I have placed ********* .

Between December 3 and 10, 2008, Mr. Patrick D. Stone, representing the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), inspected the Burzynski Research Institute (BRI) Institutional Review Board (IRB). The purpose of this inspection was to determine whether the IRB procedures for the protection of human subjects complied with Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Parts 50 and 56. ….
From our review of the establishment inspection report, the documents submitted with that report, and your April 2, 2009 written response to Form FDA 483, ********* we conclude that the IRB did not adhere to the applicable statutory requirements and FDA regulations governing the protection of human subjects. ********* We wish to emphasize the following:
It is unclear why the IRB allowed the study to go forward in humans when additional toxicity studies in animals were requested. In addition, it is unclear why the IRB allowed Dr. (b)(4) to continue (b)(4) the study when it appears that he initiated this research study, i.e., began dosing subjects, prior to obtaining IRB approval.
During the inspection in December 2008, you told the FDA investigator that you were unaware that this IND was on clinical hold. However, (b)(4) responded to the IRB in a letter dated September 4, 2008, and referenced the clinical hold placed on the IND by FDA. Minutes of the October 24, 2008 IRB meeting indicate that the IRB decided to “draft a letter to (b)(4) stating that their application for this IRB to act as an IRB for their study be placed on hold until such time as we receive information regarding the FDA’s position on the Toxicity Studies. At that time we will also review their Toxicity Studies and consider continuing their application.” The IRB conveyed this information in a letter dated November 3, 2008; however, the letter was only sent to Dr. (b)(6) and not to (b)(4).
In your written response, you state that “[t]he IRB was informed that the sponsors were in discussion with FDA regarding their IND status. Based on this, the IRB considered its relationship to both sponsors and protocols in abeyance.” As discussed above, the final piece of correspondence issued by the IRB in regard to the (b)(4) study was sent only to Dr. (b)(6) therefore, there is no documentation to demonstrate that (b)(4) was aware of the lRB’s abeyance status of this study.
In an April 4, 2005 letter, the IRB informed the sponsor-investigator that the revised documents had been approved. During the inspection, no Investigator’s Brochure was found in the lRB’s file. Therefore, it appears that the IRB approved the research without ever receiving one, which could impact an lRB’s ability to determine whether risks to subjects were minimized and whether risks were reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits.
In your written response, you state that the clinical protocol for (b)(4) was never approved for patient enrollment. Your response does not comport with the correspondence sent by the IRB to the sponsor-investigator. During the inspection, you told the FDA investigator that this study was placed on clinical hold by the FDA. It is unclear when the IRB became aware of the clinical hold status and why the IRB informed the sponsor-investigator on April 4, 2005 that the study had been approved.
2. ********The IRB failed to prepare, maintain, and follow written procedures for conducting its initial and continuing review of research ************ [21 CFR 56.108(a) and 56.115(a)(6)]. Specifically, the IRB has no written procedures for conducting reviews of device studies to determine whether they involve a significant risk device and had no evidence that it had in fact conducted such reviews [21 CFR 812.66].
3. ********** The IRB failed to ensure that informed consent would be sought from each prospective subject *********** or the subject’s legally authorized representative in accordance with and to the extent required by 21 CFR Part 50 [21 CFR 56.111(a)(4)] and that informed consent would be appropriately documented in accordance with and to the extent required by 21 CFR 50.27 [21 CFR 56.111(a)(5)].
4. ************ The IRB failed to ensure that no member participated in the initial or continuing review of a project in which the member had a conflicting interest, **************** except to provide information requested by the IRB [21 CFR 56.107(e)].5. The IRB failed to conduct continuing reviews for the following IRB approved studies [21 CFR 56.109(1)]:
6. *********** The IRB failed to maintain copies of all research proposals reviewed, scientific evaluations,************ if any, that accompany the proposals, approved sample consent documents, progress reports submitted by investigators and reports of injuries to subjects, and correspondence with investigators [21 CFR 56.115(a)(1) and 56.115(a)(4)].
7. ********** The IRB failed to prepare and maintain the minutes of IRB meetings in sufficient detail to show attendance at the meetings *************** ; actions taken by the IRB; the vote on these actions including the number of members voting for, against, and abstaining; the basis for requiring changes in or disapproving research; and a written summary of the discussion of controverted issues and their resolution [21 CFR 56.115(a)(2)].a. It appears that the IRB tape records its meetings, which are then transcribed into a hard copy format. It is difficult to discern what studies are being discussed because the minutes do not reference the exact study titles or study numbers. In addition, it appears that when the transcriptionist does not understand certain words, they are transcribed as either blanks or question marks. Due to the numerous blanks, it is difficult to determine whether controverted issues were discussed.
8. Each IRB is required to have at least five members, with varying backgrounds to promote complete and adequate review of research activities commonly conducted by the institution [21 CFR 56.107(a)].
Our inspection revealed that, in some instances, when an IRB member had a conflict of interest for a particular study, another person, who was not an IRB member, was allowed to take the place of the conflicted member and participate in the IRB’s action. There is no provision in FDA regulations for this type of action.

I say give it a shot. What the hell is money compared to a life? From reading about this clinic, I reckon they know a thing or two about cancer. If 50,000 people donate a measly 3 euro it’s a GO!

Can I thank the people above who put a lot of their time into clearly pointing out that this treatment is nonsense. To those of you who still cannot understand, very little can be done, you probably do not have a scientific education, are probably not good at basic logic and are poorly read. That’s why these sCAM con artists continue to thrive. Without the gullible they would have no income. Until we have politicians who are better scientificially educated little will change. We need tough laws to protect the gullible. As for God blessing us, I’m sorry but there’s no gods either. My suggestion to the family is acccept the reality of the situation. Spend as much time as is left with the boy and don’t waste what little you have travelling needlessly. While he is alive there is always hope. Soon Science will find cures for all cancers.

Why because it not backed or funded by a big pharma brand? If it was would you believe it? This and the gerson theory have worked for many people.

Unfortunately this "clinic" is run by a con artist. There is no chance whatsoever that attending this bogus "clinic" will cure the man. His "cure" is total nonsense.

@William Grogan,
Firstly, you seem to place a lot of faith in the FDA and it’s ‘benevolence’ in all areas relating to promoting the health of US citizens. If I were you, I would google ‘FDA and big pharma’ in order to educate yourself as to how the FDA has become a vessel to promote the economic ‘health’ of the pharmaceutical industry and not the physical health of the public. If you believe that the FDA is here to protect your health, then you will probably also believe that the Wall Street banks were there to protect the financial interests of homeowners during the housing market bubble that burst in 2008. To find out how things really work in the world, just follow the money.

Secondly, if you are going to quote the dubious opinions of a man whose sole aim in life is to debunk any and all alternative forms of medicine that pose a threat to the profits of big pharma, then you should at least educate yourself on who this guy really is. I’m talking of course about Stephen Barrett, M.D, the creator of the quackwatch.org website that you so enthusiastically quote throughout your postings on this page. The man is there to spread disinformation and to promote the interests of big pharma. It’s quite obvious when you see the vehemence with which he will attack anything that is remotely considered alternative by the medical establishment. This page should give some context to this man’s medical ‘opinions’: http://www.quackpotwatch.org/quackpots/quackpots/barrett.htm

Thirdly, if Burzynski really is such a quack, then I doubt that so many of his patients would have grouped together to create this website: http://www.burzynskipatientgroup.org/
You would do well to browse through the website a little and get a feel for what some of his patients have to say about his treatment with antineoplastons. Or are all these patients deluded quacks too?

@Buffy: your statement that the Burzynski documentary cannot be trusted because it was made by a friend of his is completely disingenuous and distracts from the issue at hand. Whether the documentary maker is a friend of his is completely beside the point. The one question you should ask yourself is whether the information provided in the film is true or not. There are many local and national news articles dating back 20 years that I have found on the internet that support the evidence brought forward in this documentary. Not least of which, the evidence about the 5 failed Grand Juries that the FDA brought against Burzynski, as well as the Congressional Hearings(!) that were set up in order to investigate the FDA’s constant harassment of the Burzynski clinic.

That is the wonderful thing about advancements in medicine,they are advancements that were made through trial & error. If you do not try methods outside the norm,we would still be killing people for being witches,when in fact it is mental illness. We are all allowed to have our own beliefs. It is sad that an individual will take the time to write a comment which in fact,hat you are really doing is trying to take away a young man & his family’s chance of survival & hope or to take it away from anyone. Your mother must be really proud of you!! I am not GOD.You will deal with him when you die!

Mr.Rooney ,Since you have so much free time to do research,why don’t you research the positives success stories the clinic has had? A suggestion I hope you do take me up on is , start to Pray,PRAY HARD,that a loved one and or family member never gets what my nephew has been diagnosed with. If it does happen to you,then you will understand why we are using this clinic,because standard medicine is not giving a positive result.I wish you well ,GOD BLESS!

I wonder how many lives 120,000 could save in a less developed country and in the right hands.

bullshit! it works!
just watch the movie!
http://www.vegsource.com/news/2011/06/unbelievable-story-of-fda-corruption—full-documentary-online-thru-monday.html

Some real cranky people posting. Give the lad hope, he’s not got anything else. If it was my child, I’d do anything no matter how out there the treatment was, and I think many would do the same, despite their comments.

screenshot taken from movie posted by Piotr above:
[URL=http://imgur.com/V67KO][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/V67KO.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

Looks promising. BTW this is a very aggressive form of brain cancer, occurring in children.

Please enough with the “educational “ post’s! I know Sean, and the Lyne family most of my life, and they are far from being naive, or stupid people. Rest assured much research has already been done, and the family are are fully aware of the risks they’re undertaking. You need ask yourself if this was you, or your loved one what you would do? Sean desperately needs supporters-not critics. So if all you have to offer is a positive comment please do so. Thank you*

We forget how delicate life is, without hope what is left!

I also want to point out that the IRB is an Independent Review Board, not paid by the Burzynski Clinic or affiliated with the Burzynski Clinic, it is INDEPENDENT. All clinical trials have an IRB.

I would also like to point out that Ignaz Semmelweis, M.D. (Google It) was also called a quack back in the 1800s for believing that doctors should wash there hands after working with each patient so as not to kill them. And what do you know, he was right.

To all those who maintain that antineoplaston therapy has absolutely no future, here’s an intersting article from 2003:
http://peoplebeatingcancer.org/about-david

Buffy,
Of course, we must not turn our backs on established, well-researched clinical trials, tests and results in order to establish whether particular treatments are of benefit to the human race. Our medical world would be a dangerous and chaotic place without such rigorous adherence to scientific theory. Thank god we have that.
However, we should also not ignore the mountain of evidence that CAN be provided by ‘compelling patient anecdotes’ when the number of such anecdotes reaches a critical mass. i.e. when there are enough of them to make their existence more than a simple statistical aberration. I realize that, for some people, the jury is still out regarding the veracity of all the personal stories from patients who have benefited from being treated with Burzynski’s antineoplastons, so I’m not going to try to convince you of the relevance of these stories.

But at the end of the day we are all dealing with probabilities. None of us can know anything with 100% certainty. All we can do is take in the information that we are exposed to and form an opinion based on that information. What each of us believes in this world is that which we believe to be the most probable explanation of a phenomenon, whether we are an expert on a particular subject, or simply an interested layman. All that we have are simply the probabilities that we attribute to a particular explanation of something that we see in the world.
I try to base my opinions not just on a simple aspect of a single story or article, but on a whole range of data and sources of information that I have become aware of in the last 10 or so years that I have been connected to the internet. I’ve read a lot of rubbish that seemed plausible at first but didn’t stand up to further scrutiny, and I’ve read a lot of shocking facts and statistics that I couldn’t and wouldn’t believe at first, but turned out to be true in the end. We live and learn every day so that we can form a view of the world around us that gives us structure and the ability to be at peace with ourselves. That’s all. Thank god we all have different opinions. It’s how we learn from each other, at least! Even if we are stubborn about letting go of old ideas. All I can do here is try to explain to you WHY I believe a certain theory, and hope you respect that in the same way that I respect your views on the more scientific and clinical evidence-based information that you use to support your view of the medical world. I applaud the passion that you have in trying to expose the real quacks in the world, whose activities are a danger to the public, and I sincerely wish you further success in this endeavour.

For the record, the reasons that I attribute value to many of the Burzynski patient stories that I have read are the following:

1.
I don’t trust corporations to do the right thing anymore. When I first learned about how the housing bubble was created and then how it burst, I couldn’t believe that elements of the banking industry could be so evil. Then I watched the documentary Inside Job (winner of the 2011 best documentary Oscar) and realised that there are people at the top of the business (banking) hierarchy who really are that greedy and evil. It was a real eye-opener. And I don’t believe that the pharmaceutical industry is any different to the banking industry when it comes to putting patients’ health before profits. If that were the case, the Vioxx scandal would never have happened.

2.
I don’t trust the FDA to do the right thing anymore. Again, if you look at the Vioxx scandal, you’ll see that the FDA was also complicit in making sure that the dangers of this drug were never reported. It was Dr Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet who said:

“In the case of Vioxx, the FDA was urged to mandate further clinical safety testing after a 2001 analysis suggested a ‘clear-cut excess number of myocardial infarctions’. It did not do so. This refusal to engage with an issue of grave clinical concern illustrates the agency’s in-built paralysis, a predicament that has to be addressed through fundamental organizational reform.”

To my knowledge, such organizational reform at the FDA has not occurred. In fact, the only organizational reform I believe it has gone through is a steadily increasing level of influence on FDA operations by big pharma consultants who have access to the highest levels of decision making in that organization.

3.
I don’t trust the medical establishment anymore since it has become nothing more than a vessel with which huge pharmaceutical corporations can further their quest for profit maximization at the expense of a genuine desire to promote long term health in the human population. If this were not the case, then nutrition would be a fundamental part of all medical training. But we all know that the effects of poor nutrition are a major source of profit for big pharma, so why change a winning formula, heh?

Knowing these things about corporations, big pharma and the FDA, I end up looking at the Burzynski documentary in a new light. It is the integrity of the FDA and the interests it represents that I start to question, not the integrity of the patients themselves who appear in the footage of the grand juries and congressional hearings (and the countless web pages that many of them have set up to write about their experiences). And if the results of Burzynski’s own trials and experiments are brought into question by an industry that clearly has a lot to lose if the current reliance on chemotherapy and radation were to collapse as a result of a new way of treating cancer, then I naturally start to question the questioning.

I may be wrong, of course, and all the information that I have seen has simply led me to the wrong conclusions. We are all human, after all. You can never be 100% sure. But until then, my money is still on Burzynski.

“Burzynski’s treatment has been in clinical trials since it’s existence. The few trials that have finished have been somewhat positive. However, independent trials run by people not in connection to Burzynski have all come back negative.”

Rhys, you don’t know what you’re talking about. If you want people to donate to your cause, that’s fine, but don’t try to discredit something that you don’t know about. Japan has done trials on Antineoplastons that Dr. Burzynski uses and has published them in peer reviewed journals and they have positive results. PubMed Dr. H Tsuda at Kurume University Hospital.

Regarding the “urine” statement made by Grr, there are other approved medications taken from urine; premarin.

Also, “He has performed human experiements without accreditation and permission from the global medical governing bodies,” this statement is also totally false. Dr. Burzynski’s medications are in FDA APPROVED clinical trials. That means that the medical governing body for the United States of America approves of Dr. Burzynski using these medications in clinical trials to see what their effectiveness are.

watch the film and make your own mind up. Looks to me like the FDA, big phaarma and the US govt have a lot of awkward questions to answer.

It’s working for http://www.hopeforlaura.co.uk give this person some hope too.