Of course there are people who get paid to write, and suing them is the only way to stop them. I’m web marketer and personally know how it works and I can tell THERE IS people who gets paid for it, you understand it or not.

A “web marketer” who doesn’t seem to know when to break up a wall of text and has english as a third language at best?

Forgive me for saying this, but you sound roughly as credible as Marc Stephens..

Of course there are people who get paid to write,

Yes. We scientists have a special word for them. We call them journalists.

and suing them is the only way to stop them.

Right, so you don’t believe in a free press, then?

And you quite clearly don’t believe in refuting an argument with evidence and reason either. So, given this, why should we pay any attention to what you say?

Your comment is a lot of rambling so perhaps you could clarify the points you make.

I don’t think “that’s why research is supposed to be published in peer-reviewed journals as well. Suing is the antithesis of that idea”.

Why don’t you think that? Do you think lawsuits are helpful in increasing the medical knowledge of the world.

They are published AFTER doctors, not smarter than Mr Burzynksi, have concluded it works (…) and each person can decide wether their live worth the price.

I will address your parenthesis below. Are you suggesting that Mr. B is smarter than doctors in general? Is there a way to determine that? Why would this man know more about medicine that qualified experts. Secondly, how does one put a price on human life? It’s all very well saying the patient can decide if they want to pay, but it ignores that the treatment centre are setting the price. Furthermore, the patient may be suffering an be unable to clearly decide what their own life is worth. Civilised countries don’t expect a patient to pay for their own medical treatment.

(in this case it’s enough with this performing better than killer current treatments – admitted by government in antineoplaston’s patent plagiarized by US Gov)

That is a very bold claim. If you have evidence that current treatments are killing patients you could win a Noble prize or something. It would be huge. Are you actually suggesting that the patients would life longer without the current treatments? On the other hand I suspect you can’t tell the difference between a patient dying after treatment has reduced their suffering or increased their lifetime and a patient being murdered.

But in no case are published in those important scientific publications to be insulted by people not being scientist in the matter, or at least doctors.

I don’t think you understand how peer review works. The peer review process opens up published work to be criticised by anyone with relevant qualifications, so that mistakes may be spotted and the work improved. The review given is as subject to criticism as the paper itself, and non-scientists’ opinions will carry less weight. This also appears to be the second time that you disparage doctors, despite them being experts in medicine and treatment.

Reading it and knowing the discriminations have been taken place against every “cure” or drug not from the big labs is at least required before to speak.

Do you really believe that? The poing of peer review is that you can discard biased views from those in industries which stand to make or lose a large amount of money. That is apart from the fact that any big lab would be all over any “miracle” cure as it would make them lots of money, as well as for its discoverer if a fair deal is worked out.

Of course there are people who get paid to write, and suing them is the only way to stop them. I’m web marketer and personally know how it works and I can tell THERE IS people who gets paid for it, you understand it or not.

Of course there are people being paid to write, and where their money comes from can have an effect on what they publish. However, if you want to attack a published opinion based on there being money behind it, you must find the evidence of the funding and not just because they don’t agree with the fairy tale you support. Here we are dealing with a teenage, amateur blogger. Is he being paid by some big lab to discredit Mr. B? It would be an amazing scandal if it were, but it seems the evidence points to a smart young man who is being attacked for attempting to expose a sham.

I think, more accurately, you should point out that the patients’ lives will be extended or their suffering lessened with conventional treatment, and the physicians who administer it are required to be straight with the prognosis. OTOH, this guy offers false hope.
This, I think, is the one aspect of human nature that has propped up quacks since time immemorial. If you have an honest and competent doctor who tells you truthfully that your odds aren’t great, and a dishonest quack who claims he can cure absolutely anything, well, it’s not hard to figure out who the patient is going to go with.

I find it interesting that all of these presumably scientifically-inclined minds are so quick to dismiss out of hand a therapy they’ve never heard of, a documentary they’ve never seen, and a clinic they know nothing about.

Why do you find this so interesting?

Why is trust in experts such a surprising thing to you?

Does it not occur to you that, in all that time, if the FDA had cause to shut Burzynski down as a quack, they would have done so long ago?

On what grounds?

As has been pointed out in some preceding comments, it seems that Burzynski knows exactly how not to cross the line and do anything illegal. Of course, one could argue that peddling a treatment with no proven benefit should be illegal, but it apparently is not.

Especially since he carries out his treatments under the umbrella of an ongoing “clinical trial” (which could be viewed as another reason that all clinical trials should be registered before they start – including what is to be measured and for how long).

In fact they’ve tried, several times, and each time the FDA has been laughed out of court. You don’t find that curious? Why so certain that he is the quack, that he is the one who is unethical? Exactly what evidence do any of you have to support that conclusion? Because of an email?

Well, partly. If Burzynski were legitimate, why would he have to threaten a libel suit against a guy who publishes rational, researched criticism?

While we’re on it: Do you not find it unethical–even slightly–to administer chemotherapy drugs to a child with a glioblastoma? A brain tumor that never, ever resolves with chemo drugs or radiation (for some very well known scientific reasons), and a therapy that is absolutely toxic and absolute torture to endure, and which inevitably cannot and will not save that child and cannot even extend her life beyond a couple months, tops–btw, that chemo is extremely expensive and extremely profitable–this everyday occurence you do not find unethical?

Sorry, you’ll have to provide a bit of background on this one.

Exactly why is that okay, in your estimation? I’m genuinely curious.

Again, not enough info to comment.

And yet an experimental treatment that is nontoxic, not harmful,

Actually, others who have tried to replicate this work struggle with toxicity issues, so Burzynski is either some kind of miracle worker or he isn’t actually giving the patients what he claims he is giving them.

Which part of that is ethical?

and is provided to otherwise terminal patients–they’re going to die with conventional treatment –that is the unethical thing?

I think, more accurately, you should point out that the patients’ lives will be extended or their suffering lessened with conventional treatment, and the physicians who administer it are required to be straight with the prognosis. OTOH, this guy offers false hope.

How about death threats? Do you approve of them as a way to suppress complaints about bad medicine, too?

“I’m web marketer and personally know how it works and I can tell THERE IS people who gets paid for it, you understand it or not.”

How much is Dr. B paying you to convince sick people to pay for experimental unproven chemotherapy?

Does it not occur to you that, in all that time, if the FDA had cause to shut Burzynski down as a quack, they would have done so long ago? In fact they’ve tried, several times, and each time the FDA has been laughed out of court. You don’t find that curious? Why so certain that he is the quack, that he is the one who is unethical? Exactly what evidence do any of you have to support that conclusion? Because of an email?

So rather than try to satisfy the FDA’s concerns, he instead hides behind the legal system. It is the same thing he is doing here. Instead of actually addressing the valid criticisms of his approaches, he instead hires someone to threaten critics online. Further, when that blows up in his face, instead of either addressing the concerns that were raised he hires lawyers to go after them in a country (the UK) with very lax libel laws.

Because we all know all the great scientists in history tried to sue their critics into submission instead of simply answering their questions.

This could all be settled in an hour by releasing the raw data, anonymized of course. But this guy doesn’t want use to see the data, and he is threating to sue anyone who points this out (or at least anyone living in a country that make libel lawsuits easy).

He apparently thinks that science is settled in courts rather than the scientific literature (which he has pretty much completely avoided for the last 5 years). But that is not how people who actually care about science handle scientific disputes.

And yet an experimental treatment that is nontoxic, not harmful, and is provided to otherwise terminal patients–they’re going to die with conventional treatment –that is the unethical thing?

The problem is that the treatment can be extremely toxic in multiple different ways.

Why, yes, I do find it unethical to administer unproven chemotherapy at high cost to desperate patients. Why don’t you?

That sounds like good news, until you read on:
“These bloggers will be contacted by attourneys representing the Clinic informing them of the specific factual statements contained in these blogs which the Clinic believes are false and defamatory…”

In other words, they fired the amateur assh*le and are hiring professional assh*les. That’s like being disappointed that the shotgun-toting bounty hunters you hired from the classifieds were unable to get rid of the termites in your house, and then going and hiring some Blackwater mercs to do the job instead. A more expensive wrong response is still a wrong response.

YES.
The e-mails in question are bullying and threats. They boil down to “Shut up, or you’ll be sorry!” That’s a red flag the size of a football pitch right there. The website(s) in question were not spreading idle slander of Dr. Burzynski, they were asserting (truthfully) that there is no credible, independent evidence that antineoplaston therapy works. Now, real scientists are quite accustomed to having their conclusions questioned, and are typically well-prepared to respond with hard data refuting these claims. The absence of such a response, and the threats that we see in its place, speak volumes.

You want to talk about unethical? How about charging the families of those suffering with cancer hundreds of thousands of dollars per patient for an unproven treatment? Shouldn’t these people being used as guinea pigs at least get a friggin’ price break for the risks they’re taking?

left frontal lobe mass 1.9cm x 1.7cm = 3.23cm (36% decrease in tumour since previous scan 6 weeks ago)

In other words, when conventional medicine told her she didn’t have a chance – she chose alternative and look at that – it seems to be working. Look , SHE is the one with cancer – not that kid – she can choose whatever medicine she wants and it’s your choice to donate to her or not – but not to judge.

You make it sound as if this experimental treatment (I assume you mean Burzynski’s use of antineoplastons) is a sure-fire cure for patients who otherwise would surely die of cancer. If I’m miscontruing that, I apologize in advance.

In any case, if Burzynski’s treatment is more effective than conventional techniques, all he has to do is produce the statistics that demonstrate this. No breach of patient confidentiality would be involved.

Does it not occur to you that, in all that time, if the FDA had cause to shut Burzynski down as a quack, they would have done so long ago? In fact they’ve tried, several times, and each time the FDA has been laughed out of court. You don’t find that curious? Why so certain that he is the quack, that he is the one who is unethical? Exactly what evidence do any of you have to support that conclusion? Because of an email?

While we’re on it: Do you not find it unethical–even slightly–to administer chemotherapy drugs to a child with a glioblastoma? A brain tumor that never, ever resolves with chemo drugs or radiation (for some very well known scientific reasons), and a therapy that is absolutely toxic and absolute torture to endure, and which inevitably cannot and will not save that child and cannot even extend her life beyond a couple months, tops–btw, that chemo is extremely expensive and extremely profitable–this everyday occurence you do not find unethical? Exactly why is that okay, in your estimation? I’m genuinely curious. And yet an experimental treatment that is nontoxic, not harmful, and is provided to otherwise terminal patients–they’re going to die with conventional treatment –that is the unethical thing?

That should be a read flag in and of itself. If a notice or other request from a lawyer doesn’t appear in physical hard copy form, with a verifiable law firms letterhead on it I take it as a scam.

However, at RI, it was said that others have attempted to replicate his work with antineoplastons (which is tricky given that he hasn’t really PUBLISHED any — he’s published abstracts but not the data) but *stopped* because they couldn’t overcome the toxicity problem.