Nov 172013
 

This has not been a good couple of weeks for the Houston cancer quack Stanislaw Burzynski. First we had the publication of the FDA inspection report documents that show the appalling state of his “clinical trials”, then on Friday the other shoe dropped: a piece that a few of us were aware was in the offing by Liz Szabo in USA Today. And not a small article, a pretty substantial piece of work that explains many of the problems discussed for a long time at sites like Science Based Medicine and The Other Burzynski Patient Group.

The more obviously fair an article is, the more venal it makes Burzynski look.

As usual the USA Today somewhat article suffers from the fallacy of false balance (inevitable in any piece on Burzynski) but it avoids the usual elephant traps of the human interest angle – coverage of Burzynski is usually written around human interest stories and varies from the atrociously credulous Daily Mail to the statements in a Reading paper that a patient’s parents still believe Burzynski gave them a few extra months with their daughter, albeit at extortionate cost and no small suffering on her part. There is no credible evidence this is true, but expecting a bereaved parent to admit that they were duped by a quack is a big ask and it would be ridiculous and horribly unjust to criticise an immensely dignified family for behaving in a normal human way.

The USA Today piece is portrayed by Burzynski fans as a hatchet job. No reasonably impartial reader would conclude that. Like the BBC Panorama documentary, what USA Today proves is that the best way to make Stanislaw Burzynski look like a grade one shit is to be scrupulously fair to him. The problem is his end.

This is the newsletter form Burzynski propagandist Eric Merola:

November 15, 2013 – Newsletter November 16, 2013

Dear Burzynski Movie Subscribers,

Wow, the medical establishment and the status quo cheerleaders have pulled out all the stops in their latest propaganda hit piece published in USA TODAY on November 15, 2013.

Here’s a list of all the evidence that the USA Today article is in any way influenced by the medical establishment:

tumbleweed

Any fair minded reader will conclude that it is not a “hit piece”. It is an honest survey of the issues.

It’s enough to make one want to give up hope for any goodness in the human condition.

No, we recognise Burzynski is an outlier, we fully accept that most doctors are sincerely trying to do their best for their patients.

Trying to “debunk” USA TODAY’s diatribe on Nov. 15, 2013 would be like someone living in Nazi Germany trying to debunk the writings of Joseph Goebbels, or an African American trying to explain to his slave master that he too is also a human being with rights and emotions, or the parents of an American soldier trying to explain to members of the Westboro Church how disrespectful it is to hold up signs that read “God Hates Fags” during their child’s funeral.

Godwin fail. There is absolutely no similarity between asking Burzynski to follow the normal rules of medical ethics, and gassing millions of people to death. All Burzynski has to do to answer critics (rather than simply trying to shout them down) is to follow the rules, just like everybody else has to.

This type of unbridled hate and bigotry goes far too deep for any rational human discourse.

No hate. No bigotry. Just simple facts: nearly 40 years of using a treatment with not a single properly published trial. Inflated claims that cannot be backed by independent evidence. Ethical issues. Overdoses. Failing to report serious adverse events for up to SEVEN YEARS after the event. You know, exactly the sort of thing that would have you foaming at the mouth if any mainstream pharmaceutical company did it.

When one applies that hate and bigotry to one’s freedom to choose his own cancer therapy, along with an innovative scientist’s supposed right to develop a new technology to fight a disease like cancer within a so called “free society”—it is a recipe for disaster.

The fallacy of freedom. The only freedom at stake is Burzynski’s freedom to continue making evidentially unsupportable claims and abusing the clinical trials process with what his own lawyer acknowledged are sham trials. People don’t have the “right to choose” whether their body has normal human physiology or not. Cancer victims are uniquely vulnerable, some countries have special laws to protect them from quacks.

Again, all Burzynski has to do is follow the rules. the same rules as everybody else. The USA Today piece is 100% about his failure to follow the rules, they barely touch on the fact that his pretence to cure cancer has made him a rich man.

In case we haven’t noticed, we all live in a totalitarian capitalist society—from the USA to China (Take it from me, I was in Ghangzhou for 7 days last week myself). The very idea of a “free market” is not one that exists in our society. If the market were free, then Antineoplastons would freely be on the market, instead of being resisted by the state. If the market were free, the banks would have freely failed back in 2008, instead of being protected by the state.

No, we really don’t. The GOP might want you to, but even the US is not a totalitarian capitalist state.

There is no such thing as a free market, because, like pure communism, it’s an ideal divorced from human nature. It assumes that greed and deceit will not play a part, but every experiment to date has shown that deregulation in the name of the “free market” (incidentally, a core tenet of the very totalitarian capitalism you say currently applies) results in abuse.

The rules are there to protect the vulnerable. Burzynski is not one of this class. He is a predator, not prey.

He cannot sell antineoplastons for the very simple reason that he has failed to provide the necessary evidence that they work. He’s been given every opportunity, he has failed. It looks very much as if he doesn’t care.

The Human Condition:

What always comes with a good propaganda campaign, is a herded army willing to join its fight to preserve the totalitarian status quo by one’s association of the group. It’s a collective acceptance required by much of the population. Most of these individuals have been deprived of any true sense of human family, thus resulting in a low sense of loyalty toward his fellow man. Most of this herd are victims of societal violence perpetuated by the very system they so blindly support. The easiest example is the bully in the schoolyard, who intimidates his fellow classmates to both get an emotional reaction, and to portray the illusion of control over others, since their home and past life has been filled with the same deprived socially violent behavior.
These are all symptoms of the structure of the state, and is thus defined as “structural violence.”

Andrew Neil sums up conspiracy theories as expounded by Alex Jones

Andrew Neil sums up conspiracy theories as expounded by Alex Jones

This is the conspiracist narrative straight out of Merola’s Zeitgeist movies. It’s the mindset of Alex Jones and his ilk.

Try to stay anchored on reality (OK, first travel to reality, then try to stay anchored there). This is a situation where a rich doctor has been claiming to have the One True Cure for cancer for nearly 40 years, has alienated pretty much everybody who has offered to help, because he wants all the money and glory for himself, has sold the treatment without approval until forced to at least pretend to do clinical trials, has used the trials process as a way of carrying on as if nothing has happened, and has been running from the corpses of his patients for all of that time.

It is not only reasonable that regulators have taken notice, it is appalling that they have allowed him to continue for this long.

Few think about the root causes of any of this. The reality is, the totalitarian market (or so-called “free market”) is directly responsible for this behavior in one way or the other. Whether it be from a childhood of neglect from a family abused by the system, and his need to redeem himself to allow it to work for him—or a child born with a silver spoon who feels the need to blindly support the system—and everywhere in between. Very few of us have had the ability (or have been encouraged) to practice skepticism of the system to experience the needed revolution of their consciousness to be able to identify this reality. People unable to recognize this expansion of consciousness make up the very system that they feel compelled to preserve. These people feel it’s their duty to preserve it, as questioning its function—and recognizing its disfunction—would likely send most of them kicking and screaming, and overdosing on Prozac.

This bullshit comes from the belief that the entirety f medicine, worldwide, is a conspiracy of the powerful. A conspiracy of millions of individuals: doctors, nurses, medical academics, regulators, politicians.

Think about that for a minute. How long did the Watergate conspiracy last before it got blown wide open? How many people were involved?

Merola’s conspiracist claptrap is not of the Watergate variety. It’s up their with alien abductions. And why should we be surprised? Merola is, according to the available evidence, a Truther. He sincerely believes that the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job by the Government.

And he also believes that Burzynski is a Brave Maverick Doctor oppressed by the same evil government that blew up the WTC.

It’s just simple economic self-preservation:

Since 1971, the cancer establishment has taken in over $200 billion in tax payer money to “fight” the disease. If the disease is conquered, that money goes away. Hundreds of universities and hospitals and the tens of thousands of employees working within those institutions rely on a constant influx of taxpayer, corporate, and publicly donated money to keep those institutions in play. If the disease is conquered, all that money goes away. Simple as that. In the USA TODAY story, Dr. Peter Adamson of the Children’s Oncology Group claims that “if Antineoplaston therapy really works, it would be on the market due to its value, and its ability to make so much money.” Dr. Adamson feels a loyalty to this totalitarian system, under the cloak of it being a “free market.” Dr. Adamson is suggesting that Antineoplastons have and will be given a chance to enter the market unabated by the system itself, hence his belief that the system is “free.” Based on 30+ years of resistance to Antineoplastons, from the NCI rigging its own trials to fail, intentionally killing nearly a dozen people, to the NIH’s FDA simultaneously trying to imprison Burzynski while partnering with Burzynski’s own research scientists to steal the medicine’s patents, and this USA TODAY article—historical precendence proves otherwise.

Since 1971 the five-year and ten-year survival rates have doubled. A whole new class of cancer therapies has been devised. A vaccine has been developed that will prevent tens to hundreds of thousands of deaths annually, depending on how widely it is used.

And Slippery Stan has published no useful evidence.

108 cancer drugs were approved in the period since the consent decree forcing Burzynski to administer ANPs only under clinical trials. None of them went the route of press releases, propaganda films, testimonials and politicking. Maybe that’s where Stan is going wrong…

What Dr. Adamson doesn’t say is that the Children’s Oncology Group is directly responsible for blocking the first ever Randomized Phase III trial for a diffuse intrinsic childhood brainstem glioma. This trial is for the use of Antineoplastons (ANP) for this condition. ANP is the first substance in medical history to cure it. And even with the utterly corrupt FDA, where over 50% of its drug evaluation money comes from the pharmaceutical industry itself—and the FDA’s oncology board comprised exclusively of pharmaceutical executives—the FDA must give the “illusion” of representing the people’s interests for its facade to work. Bound by the duty to adhere to this illusion, the FDA gave permission to allow these monumental Phase III randomized trials to commence. The only problem is—as I illustrated in BURZYNSKI: PART II—organizations like Dr. Adamson’s Children’s Oncology Group have directly blocked and prevented these monumental trials from taking place—blocking every single children’s hospital in the USA, Canada, and the UK from taking part. So everyone will inevitably say, “why won’t he do his Phase III trials?” While simultaneously blocking the very trials they wish to see.

So what? In the absence of a single published phase II trial, this is perfectly reasonable. In fact, anything else would be a gross dereliction of duty.

These are children we are talking about. The Burzynski Clinic may not give a rat’s ass about the potentially fatal side effects of their unproven chemotherapeutic agents, but most treatment centers are a bit less gung-ho about risking children for the enrichment and glory of a “Brave Maverick Doctor”. There is a good reason why medicines have to go through the stages of clinical trial: most molecules that are identified as potential therapies, do not make it to market. Excessive toxicity, in-vitro effects not replicable in vivo, side effects, lower performance than existing drugs and so on.

It’s a staple of the SCAM believer mindset that every inflated claim ever made by a SCAMmer is The Truth and the science that subsequently contradicts it is Suppression by The Man. In fact, this merely reflects the normal situation for all drugs. Most new therapeutic ideas, are wrong. The process of trials and approvals exists to try to prevent the ones that are wrong, making it to market.

If you want to know why the rules are as tight as they are, read up on thalidomide.

It doesn’t always work. Vioxx slipped through the net. We know that manufacturers try to manipulate the results for financial gain.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that SCAM manufacturers, including Burzynski, are exempt from this.

It’s very clever indeed.

It’s like the FDA saying, with the Children’s Oncology Group standing behind them: “Where are the randomized clinical trials for those childhood tumors we gave you permission for?”

Burzynski responds: “No children’s hospital will allow me to do them.”

FDA replies: “I guess we have to shut you down if you refuse to conduct those randomized clinical trials in children we gave you permission for!”

Resulting in technically being “out of the FDA’s hands”—they turn over the dirty work to a system it regulates—to halt the process.

Rinse and repeat.

Bullshit. Here’s how it normally goes:

  • In-vitro studies, animal models, toxicity tests (Burzynski claims it doesn’t work for animals, because humans are, er, not animals, or something)
  • Phase 0 trial, not always used, tests on very small groups of patients to test pharmacodynamics and treatment half life
  • Phase I trials, tests on up to 100 healthy individuals to establish toxicity thresholds
  • Phase II trials, safety and efficacy tests, normally a hundred or more patients but trials as small as 15 have been accepted for rare conditions especially cancers
  • Phase III trials, full-scale tests required for marketing authorisation
  • Phase IV post-marketing surveillance

Here’s how long it usually takes:

Timeline for drug evaluation

Timeline for drug evaluation

At each stage, typically a number of papers will be published in the peer-reviewed journals on the molecule under consideration. So, when an application is made for a Phase III trial, the investigator typically has reasonably solid answers to a lot of highly pertinent questions including:

  • does it work?
  • how does it work?
  • how toxic is it?
  • what proportion of patients respond?
  • how well do they respond?

Burzynski has no independently verifiable answers to these questions. All the answers rely on taking his word for it. Substitute Pfizer for Burzynski and ask yourself: would you take that risk? With children?

It is not in the least bit unreasonable to refuse.

The same thing goes for publishing the ANP clinical trials in the peer-reviewed literature:

Not really, no, because the bar to publication is much lower. You don’t need to have a particular type f trial in order to be able to publish, you just need credible independently verifiable data.

Never mind that numerous studies have been published using ANP showing the first cures in medical history in the peer-reviewed literature… “they” want more. The only problem is, time and again the studies are rejected outright within minutes of submission just because the name “S R Burzynski, MD” and the term “Antineoplastons” are written on the paper. The ANP papers are not “peer-reviewed” by the journals—nor are they even read. They are rejected outright due to fear of retaliation from the establishment if they dare publish the manuscripts.

There is no evidence for this assertion. We only know of one rejection, by The Lancet, a top-tier journal that accepts only a tiny fraction of the papers submitted. It has a rapid rejection process, regarded as a courtesy by authors as it allows them to resubmit elsewhere. It’s not the most obvious place to publish a paper on ANPs. BMC Cancer, PLoS Biology or PLoS One would be a much better fit. There are at least a dozen high status journals that cover the field, in fact.

And of course Eric is also begging the question. It is not a huge stretch to imagine that a paper written by Burzynski will not be of sufficient scientific quality to meet the standards of these journals. He has very little experience in publishing clinical papers. His best bet would have been to collaborate back in the 80s, but he did not want to cede any of the rights for his ideas. Read: all the money, all the glory.

Ask yourself: If you were a peer-reviewer looking at a clinical trial using ANP, and it had better results than anything that came across your desk for cancer, would you accept this manuscript, potentially destroying your employment and being potentially blacklisted from your profession? Not if you want to keep your career and support your family you won’t. Not to mention the constant stream of USA TODAY-type diatribes trying to convince the world that the inventor is a fraud—breathing down your neck, your peer’s neck, and your reader’s neck.

Rinse and repeat.

Why would it potentially destroy your employment? There’s no suggestion that oncologists would be unable to use antineoplastons if they worked and were approved. A far better case could be made in respect of genetic tests or the HPV vaccine, both of which are intended to prevent cancer. Antineoplastons are no different in character to any other new drug. If they work, doctors use them.

This hysterical conspiracist claptrap is a mainstay of the “cancer industry” bullshit peddled by the SCAM industry, but it really does not stand up to rational analysis.

“If the facts are mutable based upon the needs of the moment—then science is dead.”

I guess that might be true, but since the facts are not mutable then it’s irrelevant.

This is textbook self-preservation.

What, in a way that setting up bogus “trials” so you can carry on profiting from an unproven treatment is not?

Amazingly, the FDA—regardless of its deep-rooted monetary corruption—temporarily upheld its need to display the facade of serving the public by giving permission for these Phase III trials because ANP was the first to cure a childhood brainstem glioma in children in world history (30% cure rate for over 25 years of trials). If these monumental randomized trials for this incurable brain tumor were allowed to commence—without malicious interference—these medications would be qualified for market approval.

It would have been first if there was any credible evidence it worked. But Burzynski failed to provide that.

One of Merola’s biggest problems her eis that if ANPs actually work, then the person keeping the world from knowing about them is Stanislaw Burzynski.

However—under our totalitarian market this can’t be allowed. The biggest reason being is that if ANP was approved for this one condition, that would mean all oncologists would have access to ANP, legally granting any cancer patient the right to obtain the medications “off-label” for any type of cancer. This would be a recipe for financial disaster for the medical establishment’s stock holders.

Bullshit. Burzynski’s prices for “case management” are more than enough to live on. The treatment seems to be a lot more expensive than other chemotherapies. And if it has a higher success rate then a lot of incurable patients who are currently placed on palliative care, will get an expensive treatment instead.

Again, the conspiracist argument makes no sense even on its own terms.

Under the monetary system, anything can be purchased: the FDA, Congress, The Oval Office, and ultimately The State. Hence, the definition of a “totalitarian system.” The “free-market” was a great idea, but those who conceived it overlooked two important possible outcomes (1) The market can be purchased in its totality and (2) Historically, the public will continue to believe that the market is free, even under the newly purchased totalitarian regime, using the very same tried-and-true propaganda tactics countries have used for generations—hence USA TODAY.

Well, what we’ve seen so far from Burzynski is political pressure stopping the FDA form taking action, emotional manipulation of juries, and no actual credible science.

So the finger you point leaves three more pointing right back at you.

Dr. Adamson is just another tool in their shed. He must walk-the-walk, and talk-the-talk, in order to maintain his own self-preservation.

Really? He seemed like a nice guy to me. You know, a decent, honest man just doing his day job and picking up the pieces from Burzynski’s overdoses and side-effects, frustrated by the lack of the normal standards of clinical evidence.

In fact he seems a lot like everyone else you denigrate as evil: having originally looked at ANPs with an open mind, the actions of Stanislaw Burzynski, and nobody else, chip away at the assumption of good faith until there’s pretty much no room left for any conclusion other than deliberate deceit.

ANP costs too much money?:

Recent examples: Avastin costs over $100,000 per year, and in clinical trials has shown an extension of life by barely over a month. Temodar costs about the same, and has shown an extension of life by a couple of months. Provenge costs over $130,000 for only 3 injections and has shown mild benefit to the patient… none of these drugs have cured a single human being in clinical trials. These costs don’t include the anti-depressants, anti-inflammatory, anti-nausea, and countless other drugs shoved down the throats of the patients during these highly toxic and ineffective therapies. The list goes on and on. If the establishment cancer therapies worked—600,000 people a year in the USA wouldn’t die from cancer—and countless people wouldn’t be going bankrupt due to therapy. If cancer therapies worked, Burzynski wouldn’t have anyone seeking his therapy. In the end, as has been proven time and again, Burzynski’s therapy is far less in cost than anything the mainstream offers. The only difference being insurance refuses to pay for it, as the insurance companies would have their heads handed to them if they did. Gag orders have been placed on the few families where insurance did pay for this therapy. The “money” issue is yet another proven tool in the propaganda tool box to emotionally sway the reader—giving the reader the illusion that people are being “ripped off”.

More unevidenced conspiracist bullshit. Here’s how it goes with HMOs: people get cancer, the HMOs face a big bill. Put yourself in their place. Would you rather pay a lower price or a higher price? If ANPs are effective and cheaper, the very commercial imperative you insist prevents HMOs from funding ANPs, actually works the other way.

If I were an HMO I would be as frustrated as Dr. Adamson with Burzynski’s failure to publish any credible science, but for a different reason.

ANP… is toxic?

This was perhaps the most stunningly malicious use of emotion to manipulate the reader in any of the propaganda pieces against ANP in history. Never mind that tens of thousands of people die from complications from approved and properly prescribed pharmaceutical drugs per year—being one of the leading causes of death in the USA. Never mind that the average Stage IV cancer patient dies from complications due to chemotherapy and radiation before the disease has a chance to kill the patient. USA TODAY will have you believe that “sleeping in excess” a little bit while under ANP is a dangerous and toxic side effect of the therapy.

That claim is bullshit.

And the rates of complications with other drugs have no bearing on the fact that “non-toxic” ANPs bloody well are toxic. Burzynski likes to pretend that patients just get a little sleepy because of their ANP-induced hypernatremia, but the patients tell a whole different story.

That’s the thing about Stan. he seems to have total self-belief: everything is just airily waved away because he sincerely believes he’s working miracles.

That’s pretty much the most dangerous attitude a doctor can possibly have.

Never mind that not one single cancer patient in the history of ANP’s existence has ever died from the therapy.

Ever.

So Burzynski says. Which either means that’s another thing he’s in denial about, or he has got very lucky that the local hospitals are well practiced at stabilising patients he pushes into acute hypernatremia. Oh, and is taking credit for that. What a prince.

Thing is, medicine is all about risk vs. benefit. The risks are real with ANPs, the benefits we have only Slippery Stan’s word for. He could have changed that any time in the last four decades if the data back him up.

The fact that he hasn’t, rather suggests that the data don’t back him up.

Using the emotional response vs. the scientific response to argue away reality:

You were already doing that, you didn’t nead another header.

Feeding on emotion is a very effective and proven tool in creating more hate and bigotry from the public toward the establishment’s desired enemy. For instance, they cleverly combine results from children’s leukemia (which has a well-known cure rate using traditional therapy), with children’s brainstem glioma—giving the uneducated reader the idea that ALL children’s cancer has a high cure rate today using standard therapy. This gives the illusion that Burzynski is somehow lying to the public about the results found in his FDA clinical trials treating childhood brainstem glioma. Thus creating more hate toward Burzynski. (Note: The FDA itself admits ANP is the first to cure a childhood brainstem glioma, which would in turn make the FDA “liars” for admitting the truth—is any of this getting old yet?).

Eric, I am truly impressed by your complete absence of even the most rudimentary self-criticism.

You have played a non-trivial role in the SCAM industry. What the scam industry does is pure bigotry. It demonises chemotherapy, surgery and radiotherapy, in order to sell things that it finds ideologically preferable but lacks the evidence to be able to stand up alongside medicine.

NOBODY pretends that all cancers are the same, in the way you assert they do. The only people who cherry-pick stats for chemotherapies and deliberately ignore the influence of chemo in leukaemia, are the SCAM industry.

Burzynski’s commercial success relies 100% on doctors being brutally honest, and Burzynski using much more attractive figures he can’t back up with science.

ANP was originally derived from human blood and urine. Since the early 1980′s is has been synthesized in a lab, and thus patented. USA TODAY takes another emotional stab describing the odor of ANP as “unpleasant”. In comparison, nurses have to wear full anti-toxic suits to administer most chemotherapy, and must stand behind huge metal walls when administering radiation. Why mention the “unpleasant odor?” It gives the reader the illusion that somehow this doctor is giving his patients urine, thus resulting in an “unpleasant” emotional response. (Never mind that the widely used drug Premarin is pregnant horse urine).

Sure, and the SCAM industry would never dream of doing that, for example by referring to “Cut, Poison, Burn” or always including the word “cytotoxic” when talking about chemo. That would just totally never happen.

When you read the USA TODAY diatribe, you will find this type of rhetoric a constant throughout.

Let’s just have another flip through it.

Nope, they say it’s the history and leave it at that, pretty much.

This is likely the industry’s last “Hurrah!” before trying to finally shut ANP down for good.

And there will be only one person to blame: Stanislaw Burzynski. The man who failed to publish.

This is not just about Burzynski:

Yes, it really is.

Dr. Burzynski is just the inventor. ANP are the medications. The Japanese have spent over 27 years independently studying ANP therapy with double the survival rates in randomized clinical trials. USA TODAY wouldn’t dare mention that. If those trials are published, it will be very interesting to see what will happen. The “randomized trial” is the sacred holy grail of this totalitarian system’s covenant. Perhaps this is why they are trying so hard to destroy the inventor and leave him in shame and disarray. Because once word gets out that ANP has passed their covenant of the randomized trials, with glowing results—they will be forced to (a) re-write the entire scientific method as they know it to redefine what is considered a “proven therapy”, (b) destroy any institution that dare define ANP as “proven”, or (c) allow it to grow into scientific acceptance. If it were a free system, scientific acceptance would be the obvious outcome. But given the totalitarian nature of the system of which we live they will inevitably attack, malign, and ridicule any institution that tries to get the independent results of these randomized trials into the public sphere. They will use the same hate-filled and bigoted tactics, they will prey on the public’s fear and emotion, and they will likely win.

And guess what? There’s no credible published evidence to support that “double the survival rates” claim. The clue is in: “if those trials are published”.

How many times do we need to say it, Eric?

The problem is not that ANPs have the taint of the discredited quack piss treatment. It’s not that “big pharma” wo’t profit. It’s not that it will put doctors out of a job. It’s not that it will undermine the profits of the insurance companies.

The problem is that there is, after nearly forty years, no credible published evidence the treatment works.

A lot of people have paid a lot of money, but there is no independently verifiable evidence that anybody other than Stanislaw Burzynski has benefited from this.

You really ought to fix that.

Is Burzynski a perfect human being? No. Neither are you. But they need an “enemy” to target, so they do all they can to attack the “enemy” vs. addressing any scientific truth.

Have you seen what Burzynski says about his opponents? He calls them “hooligans” and “hired assassins”, he reckons people present with fake disease so they can sue the clinic. That’s attacking the enemy, asking for credible published evidence is not. See the difference between the two? No, of course you don’t.

The Reality:

One thing that is abundantly clear in our so-called “free world” is this: once you are diagnosed with cancer, you are involuntarily forfeiting most of your human rights. Your right to choose a therapy path, explore any other options, or your right to ask any skeptical questions to your oncologist—are forfeited. The only right guaranteed to you, is the right to refuse all therapy—and go home and die.

Bullshit. Patients have options presented to them, and not just the choice to completely forego treatment. Whether to accept any particular adjuvant therapy, especially, is usually very much a matter for the patient.

They are also free to spend their life savings on quack therapies offered by unscrupulous people, but the unscrupulous people enjoy no right of protection and are rightfully hunted down and prosecuted. I’d hate for it to be any other way.

Anyone who has been diagnosed with cancer knows, at least in the Western World, the oncologist is merely a tool, robotically reading from the required cookbook given to him in order to preserve his employment. There is no room for creativity or personalization within this so-called “practice.” All cancer patients are immediately handed off to the nurses to administer to the patient “whatever the book says.”

Offensive bullshit. Oncologists constantly strive to improve treatments and outcomes, which is why survival rates have doubled since the 70s.

And it wasn’t Stanislaw Burzynski that invented personalised cancer therapy, it was oncologists.

This system of oncology is working very well for the status quo. There is a reason why it is called The Establishment. This system has therefore been established, and is not open for change. Altering The Establishment is not an option. Anyone that even thinks about trying to change that will be taken down. Burzynski is just one of a long line of those who have “tried to make a difference.” The only reason Burzynski and ANP has gotten the attention that it has is because, at least up until know, he is still alive and ANP is still alive. And most importantly, ANP is curing incurable cancers that the medical establishment has yet to cure in its entire history.

No, it’s a work in progress, like all scientific endeavours. Science is the mechanism by which human fallibility is separated from belief.

The people who have been taken down are, historically, those who claimed to cure cancer but failed to provide credible scientific evidence. Hulda Clark, Max Gerson, Harry Hoxsey, Nicholas Gonzalez, Johanna Budwig, Rene Caisse, Royal Rife. The world of SCAM accepts them all without question while rejecting mainstream therapies. Even though their ideas are in some cases mutually contradictory.

The establishment will fight to the end until this doctor and/or his medications are destroyed forever. It doesn’t matter where ANP goes, the FDA will track it down and destroy it at all costs no matter what country it tries to be moved.

Bullshit. The establishment would not need or want to fight if he was able to follow the normal standards of evidence and ethics.

Unless all 13 million people in the USA living with cancer, and all of their friends and loved ones simultaneously convene on the steps of the FDA, Capital Building, and White House, and stay there—nothing will change. I don’t expect that to happen, as all of us are strategically caught in the stranglehold of the very system that keeps us from doing so.

Why would they do that? They’d first need good evidence that ANPs worked, and if that existed the need for them to march would vanish.

In Conclusion:

Taking one simple glance at history—using simple common sense—we will find that everything of scientific innovation has come from the fringe, and has directly threatened the status quo at the start. From The Wright Brothers to Steve Jobs – they were all once considered “fringe mavericks” until their efforts merged into the mainstream and became a participant in the “status quo.” The status quo is there to create its own legion of followers, while only those who dare to step out of it and take a risk with something that could change it—those are the only people in human history that have ever contributed to changing it. These innovators didn’t listen to anyone except their own hearts and minds—while ignoring all the noise around them.

Absolute nonsense. The idea that advances come from the fringe is wishful thinking. Any scholar of the history of science knows that the idea of radical figures who broke the mould is seductive but wrong. Galileo reflected the developing scientific consensus, he was not a “lone genius”. Few figures in scientific history worked in isolation – Newton, perhaps, and Dirac was a loner. Neither was fringe. The thing about science is that most discoveries that are considered groundbreaking are more complete explanations of already known, but previously disparate facts.

Do not mistake mavericks like Feynman for the fringes. Feynman assiduously cultivated a personal mythos of eccentricity, but he was a respectable and indeed an excellent scientist wholly within the tradition. And Feynman exemplifies the change in science that has created the scientist as a class apart, which in turn feeds the fallacy of belief in Kuhn’s “normal science” versus “paradigm shifts” so beloved of the fringes: in 1813, one man could know all there was to know in multiple fields of inquiry. In 1913 this was less true, but an able amateur could still grasp the fundamentals. In 2013, the frontiers of science are so heavily mathematical that few can even comprehend them.

So, for every genuinely new discovery that has come from the fringe in the last century, I guarantee to find you at least ten that came from diligent mainstream science.

If you remember anything from this essay, it should be this: What frightens the establishment about Antineoplastons has nothing to do with a Polish man in Texas who invented them. It’s about their loss of control and authority—over a highly profitable and highly sustainable share of a totalitarian market. Anyone who feels the need to come up with “Conspiracy Theories” to explain the lack of acceptance of ANP by the establishment in any other way, simply doesn’t understand how the system works.

Not really, no. What we take away is the fact that once you star believing bullshit, you get sucked into the intellectual black hole.

For a Truther no conspiracy is improbable. For the real world, things are a little different.

In solidarity,
Eric Merola

Director, Burzynski Documentary Film Series

They are not documentaries. But whatever.

PS: I am frankly sick and tired of “debunking” a broken system, and those who blindly support it—time and time again. This documentary series has been a very cathartic experience for me. Everything we have witnessed in this “Burzynski Saga” is merely a small symptom of a larger societal cancer—and all the metaphorical Antineoplastons in the world can’t cure such a perverse malignancy. We don’t need new politicians, we don’t need new regulations—all that we require is a global revolution of consciousness.

Touching, but false. It doesn’t matter how many bearded radicals march on the streets, what cancer research needs is money and diligent science. Burzynski has money but no diligent science. Why he gets a pass on this just by claiming to be alternative is anyone’s guess: by any definition he is profiting by administration of unproven toxic chemotherapy.

  3 Responses to “Burzynski and USA Today: his number 1 fan speaks”

  1. So, what you are saying is that you disagree with Eric?

    • Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to give that impression. No, I don’t disagree with him. I think he’s a raving lunatic whose opinion is so far wrong it defies agreement or disagreement, and inspires one merely to point and laugh.

      Actually the second Burzynski movie is so totally over the top it is practically a self-parody.

  2. (ponder, ponder, ponder, ponder)
    GOT IT! (claps hands)
    Eric Merola’s point is that the scientific method caused 9/11. Is that it?
    ;)

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Site last updated July 22, 2014 @ 10:10 pm; This content last updated November 17, 2013 @ 4:29 pm