Stanislaw Burzynski’s public record

I’m going to put aside the conspiracy theories for a minute to talk about an issue that has suddenly gotten quite big quite on the Internet, though my interest in this topic goes back about 15 years.

Many years ago, the son of a friend was diagnosed with brain cancer.  He held on for about a year and had the best treatment possible at St. Jude’s. His mom had done everything possible, but in the last stages, he was too sick to participate in an experimental trial. My friend began looking for another option. From her perspective, anything that even looked like an option was preferable to what surely awaited her.

One day, near the end, I got a call. It was my friend, and she wanted to bounce an idea off of me. She had heard about a doctor somewhere in the south who had an experimental treatment. The main ingredient? An extract of urine. I listened to her, and then I crushed her. If this guy had a cure for cancer, then he’d have multiple Nobel Prizes right now. Of course, I did not mean or even want to extinguish that last bit of hope, but the doctor forced me to. I don’t know who this doctor was, but I have never forgiven him for putting me in that position, for preying on my friend’s misery, or for trying to take away the last days she had with her son.

Her son died shortly thereafter, at home, which is something, I guess.

Stanislaw Burzynski, M.D. [for now] runs a clinic in Houston, TX. He’s been running “clinical trials” on people with extracts from urine for decades. Is this the same guy? I don’t know. I don’t care.

If you take a look at the public record, Dr. [for now] Burzynski has assembled quite a record of getting people to raise enormous amounts of money for desperate causes which usually end in failure.

  • On Nov. 1, the Irish Times reported that one patient had to raise EUR 50,000. Keith Gibbons’ friends are still trying to raise money, but I’ve seen no update of his progress. [UPDATE 8/10/12: It’s with a heavy heart that I report that Keith Gibbons succumbed to his tumor. My condolences go out to his loved ones.]
  • On 26 June, 2011, The News of the World reported that the parents of Zoe Lehane Levarde were trying to raise 1 million for treatment at the Burzynski Clinic (1 million to get into a drug trial?). Zoe is now dead.
  • On 5 June, The Sunday Express reported that Luna Petagine needed to raise $20,000 to just find out if she was eligible for the unproved treatment. [UPDATE 8/10/12: I am distressed to report that Luna has passed away. The $100,000 raised to take her to Burzynski did not help, as the treatment was suspended after a month.]
  • In January of last year, an 8-year old girl from Australia, who had raised $135,000 for treatment, died, according to the West Australian.
  • The Evening Standard reported on 23 July that Wayne and Zorzia intended to take their son to the Burzynski Clinic.  According to the article: “The clinic says its antineoplaston therapy, which targets cancer cells without destroying normal cells, could give Fabian a 30 to 50 per cent chance of survival. But the treatment will cost £100,000 for the first year and is not eligble for NHS funding. A spokesman for Great Ormond Street Hospital said there was no medical evidence to suggest it would be more effective than chemotherapy.” The poor kid died that September, having only raised $50,000.
  • In March 2005, the Montreal Gazette reported that a five-year old girl, Raphaelle Lanterne, died after her parents went against medical advice and saw Burzynski.
  • In October 2003, The Gazette reported that the parents of Antonio Luk were looking for $200,000. I found that his foundation raised $30,000. Treatment was $10,000/month. Antonio died in 2004. Featured in the same article was teenager, Wesley Stefanik, another patient of Burzynski, who it seems also succumbed to his cancer.
  • On 29 September 2002, the Dallas Morning News reported that Burzynski patient Christian Titera’s costs were $13,000/month. The family raised $61,000. He died in April 2003.
  • On 21 April 2002, the New York Daily News reported that Taylor Mouzakes’ family was paying $10,000/month. Taylor died in 2006.
  • Mirjam Binnendyk, 24, went to Burzynski’s clinic, reports the Montreal Gazette in 2001, and she was happy with the treatment at the time, though the $200,000 price tag was an out-of-pocket expense. She appears to have died in 2008, but I have not been able to pin down the year.
  • Brandon Hamm, reports the Dallas Morning News on Feb 17 2002, was delivered into the care of Burzynski. It cost his family $13,425 to begin treatment. “‘I just hope this treatment at the Burzynski Clinic has him up and running in a year like the other children I read about,’ said Ms. LeJeune [Brandon’s mother], referring to testimonials on the Burzynski Clinic’s website.” He died the next day, and the death was reported in the paper on the 20th.
  • From the Globe and Mail, 9 March 2o00:

“Jean and Tom Walsh also found Dr. Burzynski on the Internet. Their 26-year-old daughter, Andrea, had also been diagnosed with a fast-growing brain tumour. They borrowed $16,000 to start her treatment, then borrowed more. Andrea suffered severe side-effects, including high fevers, disorientation and constant thirst. When Jean complained, the nurses told her these were signs the tumour was breaking up. A few weeks later, she was told that Andrea would soon be back to work. “I can’t tell you how happy we were,” Jean recalled. Her daughter died two days later, on the plane on her way home. That was 2½ years ago. Jean and Tom are still paying off their debts.”

  • In the same article, the Globe and Mail reports that Rosmari Brezak, whose treatment was projected to cost $300,000, after five weeks in treatment at the clinic, had a massive seizure and lapsed into a coma. She died on March 9.
  • The St. Petersburg Times of 3 Feb 2000 said that the husband of 29-year old Tracy Bolton was attempting to raise $10,000 to take his wife to Burzynski. When she died on the 9th, her husband was reported by the Times as saying: “If only we had gotten the money a week sooner, we would have been out there.”
  • Norma Chaimberlain of Cardiff, reported The People on 26 July 1998, was receiving  £4000/month supplies of intravenous antineoplastin, and her family was tasked with raising the projected  £90,000. She did not live through the year.

Need I go on? And this is the public record, people. Of the records I searched, I found one girl who seems to have beaten cancer into a 3rd remission. Almost everyone else I saw who had been touched by this guy is dead.

Now we hear that this guy’s representatives are threatening bloggers who question the unproven treatment? They started with Quackometer, who caught wind of yet another international fundraising event (I think that is how most of these cases ended up in the newspapers I researched–so many fundraisers). Andy came up with some reasonable concerns about Burzynski’s practices, and I quote at length:

  • Burzynski is a ‘lone genius’. Great scientific medical cures rarely stem from single individuals. They are the result of collaboration and teams. Such breakthroughs need to be assessed by peers to ensure that the researcher is not mistaken or overstating their case.
  • Burzynski is claiming he has found the ‘cause of cancer’ and his antineoplaston therapy is its cure. Cancer is a name given to many different diseases. There is not a single cause and treatments need to be targeted as specific forms. It is a common quack claim that they have found the ‘single cause’ and they have a ‘unique cure’.
  • The ‘cure’ – Antineoplastons – which were extracted from urine (yes – its the piss treatment) – has no good independent peer-reviewed RCT evidence suggesting it is effective.
  • Consequently, the treatment is not approved by US regulators. However, it is approved if treatment is part of a trial.
  • The Burzynski clinic charges hundreds of thousands of dollars for people to enroll themselves in a trial.
  • These trials of this ‘new and pioneering treatment’ have been going on for decades – since 1977. No end appears to be in sight.
  • The website Quackwatch has raised concerns about the origin of Burzynski’s claimed PhD.

Someone who apparently represents this unproven piss peddler then released a barrage of positively unhinged rants and threats against not only Andy, but also his family. This bloke doesn’t seem to understand that not only do we have the right to question Burzynski’s “miraculous” treatments, but an obligation to question them.

The threats, then, are unforgivable. And skeptics have noticed, including Orac, before whose mighty word processor the very mountains tremble. (Update: Numerous lists are going up of bloggers writing about this. Here’s LizDitz’s running tally of articles.)

It’s time for Burzynski, after decades of trials, to submit his data to peer-review or to stop treating and charging patients.


Please donate to St. Jude’s, who don’t turn people away, even if they can’t pay. Unlike Burzynski, who was once found guilty of fraud.

121 Responses to Stanislaw Burzynski’s public record

  1. We have started a petition to attempt to get Burzynski to reveal his data.

    We don’t suspect it will have much of an effect but it might make people think twice before undertaking this unproven treatment.

  2. […] Stanislaw Burzynski’s public record RJB, Skeptical Humanities 26/11/11 […]

  3. […] Stanislaw Burzynski’s public record ( Share this:PrintTwitterFacebookMoreDiggEmailLinkedInSeed NewsvineStumbleUponRedditLike this:LikeOne blogger likes this post. […]

  4. Bob says:

    Excellent, Liz. This is important stuff and we need to keep public pressure up on him.


  5. Joe says:

    You’re fighting uphill. He’s in Houston, kingdom of the rich-so-we-don’t-care. MD Anderson, actually a world-renowned cancer research center, is not too far away in Houston. The doctors there wont comment on the Burzhit story.

    I now work for one of those former docs who relocated to FL, and he’s the same way. Loves research, except when its something negative. The entire ethos of those people is success, so failure tends to get swept under the rug big time. (standard recap of the guy plus the mention that Md Anderson declined comment) (incredibly scary article oh crap it could be a movie) (corporate coverup, lawsuit, it wins, they appeal like crazy to squash bad pr) (more corporate cover up of an eyesore) (research money doesn’t like to be tracked to its source) (this is why those doctors do their job, sadly. It’s all about the glamour and i don’t refer to a style section blurb to be cute about it – these folks and many others i have witnessed in the hospital system care more about cosmetics, celebrities and tv than they do cancer. Fighting a quack doc with skepticism and attention to them is nothing more than an obstacle to tee time).

  6. Bob says:

    Thanks, Joe. Mindless optimism has gotten me this far. What if we were to get St. Jude’s involved? They have an interest in seeing this guy outed, since so many of this guy’s patients are kids with brain cancer.


    • Joe says:

      The patients at St. Judes would be interested, but not so much the doctor’s because theyre so self-absorbed. The admnistrators are even worse, because they know that anything they do would be overshadowed by the efforts of lawyers when it all gets legal, so no credit = no motivation.

      That might sound cynical but it could get worse, I could tell you.

      However, mindless optimism got me to this site, so what they hey. We liase with St. Jude’s and my department head came from there, so I’ll pass it along tomorrow..bit

      • Bob says:

        Well, you know, when kids run out of options, the parents are especially vulnerable to go to a cancer quack. Perhaps producing some sort of guide to warn parents of cancer quackery would be useful? Use Burzynski as an example? Last night when I was looking into him, he did seem to have a disproportionate number of children as patients. (Though kids with cancer may just be written up in papers more than…olds.) I’d be willing to do some writing for it, but I’d want it vetted by an MD. I have a couple of doctors here in town I could work with, if you can find any interest.


  7. […] examines the claims made in the Burznski movie and is highly recommended reading. While another blog lists the tragic outcome for many of those who fought long and hard against cancer and to raise […]

  8. […] Stanislaw Burzynski’s public record ( […]

  9. Pacal says:

    There was a “Dr” H. Clark who claimed that all cancer was caused by parasites and that fluhing them out would “cure” it. Her clinic was in Mexico and unregulated. Many, many people experienced a ssignifigant lightening of their wallets and Bank accounts due to paying huge fees to this phony.

    Well I personally think we should investigate “Dr” Burzynski’s finances. I strongly suspect he has gotton quite rich from all this. Further a breakdown of what costs what in terms of a treatment would be good thing to know.

    I’m also rather flabbergasted at charging 100s of thousands of dollars for participation in a “Clinical trial”!!!

  10. Bob says:

    I know. It’s one of the worst things I’ve heard about. I’m positive that it is the same guy from 10 years ago, now that I’ve done the research. Deplorable. These guys sell hope, and desperate people will buy it at any price.

  11. Bob says:

    I just realized I should have titled this post, “Houston, we have a problem.” Damn.


  12. […] have been several similar campaigns to raise money to get someone into Burzynski’s clinic, a whole bunch have been reported on here, (“Stanislaw Burzynski’s public record «  Skeptical Humanities,” RJB, 2011) . Here are […]

  13. […] see here for his public record – makes for a disturbing […]

  14. […] Stanislaw Burzynski’s public record RJB, Skeptical Humanities, 26/11/11 […]

  15. Pacal says:

    I just looked at the following article linked to above.

    Which refers to a New York Times article from 1996 which states that between 1988-1994 the gross income from his clinic was 40 million dollars and that “Dr.” Burzynski took home c. 1 million a year during that time.

    New York Times article –

    Since its been more than 16 years since the New York Times article it would appear to be the case that “Dr.” Burzynski’s business has accumulated tens of millions in further income and “Dr.” Burzynski has earned further millions also.

  16. Mrs. J says:

    Interesting enough…you’re not the least bothered by ineffective yet costly and cruel methods like chemo and radiation but spend your life with ranting about things that a) you apparently have not even received the education to understand; and b) are not exactly your business, as you seem to be on the healthy side.

    It is more than obvious that this blog is paid pharma propaganda (yeah, sure enough you invest all your time into this blog because you always wanted to write about urine…) and not a real person’s thoughts.

    One question: Given you had cancer and given you once saw someone being injected these toxines called chemotherapeuticals which make you scream from pain and which fail to save more then 50% of patients and leave the survivers wrecked – are you sure you would not consider an ancient method, at least as a supporting measure?

    Or would you rely solely on the expensive yet obsolete standard treatments? Urine would not have saved this boy, especially not after the child was poisened with cytostactcs, but apparently enough cancer patients have made positive experiences, so who are you to judge?!?

    Beside, anybody who has a little insight into lawmaking and lobbying procedures knows how consequently natural methods are being ridiculed. By paid writing staff like you on this pathetic level, by lawyers like me on the serious level.

    But what really makes me want to throw up is this hipocratic deception you stage here – are you not disgusted by yourself? This is not about one doctor who asks people to pay money for “clinical trials” (the only label the treatment can be marketed under) as they obviously could just start drinking their own pipi with basically the same results,it’s about fighting a proven natural healing method.

    Thus, against quackwatch one should start a contrasite “paid opinions watch”,or “lobbying inside” or such…you’d rank high!

    • Eve says:

      Hey, I write for this blog too. Where the hell is my Big Pharma check? Bob, have you been stealing my Big Pharma checks again?

      ETA I mean, I need something to supplement my income from Big Shakespeare.

    • Bob says:




      Don’t mistake painful/unpleasant/costly with poor efficacy or evil intent or cruelty. That’s the first mistake you’re making. Also, you are wrong about the efficacy. Cancer may usually win. (I’m not sure what the statistics are on that) But chemotherapy and radiation do have track records of helping reduce/destroy cancer. And being totally f*ing unpleasant every step of the way. But they have been subjected to scientific scrutiny and have measurable outcomes.

      How did you figure out I was paid by big pharma? It was all those posts about Beowulf and Iwo Jima, wasn’t it?

      You make two logical fallacies in your response. First, you appeal to antiquity: “are you sure you would not consider an ancient method, at least as a supporting measure?” Who knows what I’d consider? But that doesn’t mean that I would be right to consider something because it is old. Just because something is old doesn’t mean that it is useful/beneficial.

      Then you make the appeal to nature fallacy, assuming that because something is “natural” that it is useful or beneficial. That’s just wrong. Cancer appears in nature, fer crying out loud. Just because something is natural doesn’t mean that it is beneficial. If a cancer treatment were natural and demonstrably beneficial, I’d be happy to accept or use it. But if something were completely synthetic and demonstrably beneficial, I’d be weeding myself out of the gene pool to not try it.

      Where am I wrong in my post? Tell me. Which of those people is still alive? Go. Go do it. I’ll wait. And when you find I’m wrong, then I’ll change it. But until you have something other than delusions that because I disagree with you I must be paid by people who you think are your enemies, I’ll just pity you.

    • Tim Farley says:

      Mrs. J, you seem very against chemotherapy. If find this an interesting position for a Burzynski defender.

      Are you aware that Dr. Burzynski himself treats many if not all of his patients with chemotherapy? Not only do Wayne & Lisa Merritt recount having to pay way too much for the chemo they were sold by Burzynski, but much of the content of the Texas Medical Board complaint against Burzynski is about how he misused chemotherapy on his patients.

    • Patricia says:

      “a proven natural healing method” — No.

      Not natural: as Tim Farley says, he’s been including chemotherapy (and immunotherapy) drugs in his treatments, in some cases apparently without informing the patients of this.

      Not proven: it’s still in Stage II trials, for one thing. And all he’s published in 30+ years has been a few picked positive-looking results, and there’s no control to indicate whether that would be any better than chemo. Animal trials showed no effect, and he’s claiming that’s because it’s species-specific.

      As for healing: certainly not proven, and in some cases claimed to be happening to patients who die shortly thereafter.

      I really don’t care whether the source of the treatment involves urine or not (though apparently it’s supposed to be from a healthy person, so not the patient’s own). However, if there is this apparent difference in the urine of a person with cancer and one without, it would be a great non-invasive diagnostic. Why hasn’t he developed one, then? Using it instead as a treatment seems to be reversing cause and effect, a bit like feeding a conventional car water in the hopes that it will turn into one that runs on hydrogen fuel cells.

      • Bob says:

        I really like your last paragraph there. A lot!


      • Pacal says:

        “Not natural: as Tim Farley says, he’s been including chemotherapy (and immunotherapy) drugs in his treatments, in some cases apparently without informing the patients of this.”

        I’m amazed and shocked. So much for informed consent.

  17. george b woods says:

    my dad has been fighting none small cell long cancer for 2.5 years now. started out with taking lower lobe of his left lung,then it moved to his liver and back to his lung. he start agressive chemo carbopatine and taxil. wreaked him and the cancer for awhile a good while his doctor says he an amonally [my spelling sucks] now it is back and also in his kidney can no longer do taxil an carbo because his body will not take the toxicity. he’s doing something else now. im a factory worker i swing shifts one evening i woke to go work an saw the tale end of Stanislaw Burzynski bio on tv, i was filled with a new hope for my dad. After doing alittle research today im so glad you did alot of research, i know we could not afford the treatments and i could not sleep at night knowing i may have considered raising money to get my dad into these trails. as the tears roll down my face writing i know my dads days are few but i thank you so much you cant imagine how grateful i am.

    • Patricia says:

      Thank you for illustrating the answer to “what’s the harm in giving these people a faint hope?” At least you have peace of mind. Best wishes to you and your father.

  18. Bob says:


    I am very sorry for what you and your dad are going through. Please take comfort in knowing you’ve done everything you can. I hope to develop an Internet research guide for families who are facing similar decisions, because I’m sure you know that families are constantly researching and evaluating sites online when they get a diagnosis, but I don’t know if doctors already distribute this type of information.

    Your message was very important to me. I’m glad I could help in this hard time, and I will think of you and your dad while I work on this project.


  19. bobby says:

    You are kidding right?
    In 2006, my father was in coma for 4 days. The hospital billed the insurance over $300,000. That is about $75,000.00 per day. Comparing to that, the $10,000.00 per month seems pretty cheap – by about 22,500.00%.
    If you want to know how much will a radiation therapy or chemotherapy going to cost you, just try to get a quote from a hospital hot associated with your insurance. I am sure you would not like it and you definitely would not be able to afford it.
    btw. the 7 years that the cancer patient lived is about 50.00% longer than the average cancer patient treated with chemo and/or radiation.

  20. Bob says:

    I’m not sure what your father’s experience has to do with this. Yeah, legitimate treatment is expensive. Useless treatment is always too much, no matter what it costs. You seem to be conflating cost and efficacy. And for all I know, you are comparing apples and silver dollars: “Yes, that can of soda was $2.00, but my Prius was $30,000. That soda is looking like a bargain!”

    Did you notice where I said I was not able to pin down the year Mirjam died, so we don’t really know how long she lived for? But even if 7 yrs is right, there are several things to consider: 1) taking a single case where someone lives 50% longer (if that’s true, I honestly don’t know) doesn’t tell you anything. How do we know it wasn’t remission? The only way to establish a causal relationship is through large controlled trials. 2) The outcome is clearly not the cure he lures people into his sham trials with. 3) Did you read that he also treats people with chemo? How do we know that it wasn’t the chemo that extended her life (if it was in fact extended), or the chemo she got before she visited him, or the radiation that she had before she visited him? This is why large controlled trials are necessary.

    He needs to release his data or stop making promises and charging the dying to pump them full of piss.

  21. […] Burzynski, alternativ behandler mot kreft, føler seg undertrykket av legemiddelindustrien og svarer på det ved å undertrykke kritikk med […]

  22. […] Stanislaw Burzynski’s public record – "…not only do we have the right to question Burzynski’s “miraculous” treatments, but an obligation to question them." I cannot agree more. PLEASE help expose this quack for what he is. […]

  23. kingacres says:

    I viewed the film “Cancer is Serious Business” yesterday and was outraged by the treatment Burzynski got…for the first 60 minutes.
    The testimonials were so poignant and the connection between DHA and Big Pharma so well established that it seemed plausible.

    By the end of the film I felt puzzled: Where was the other side’s story? Where were the patients whose Burzynski treatments had failed? If Big Pharma had conspired to defeat him in this country, why had no other country in the world allowed him to proceed? Why was there no discussion of cost? Why were the testimonials all so old? The clip that included the lawyer’s testimonial before a Congressional Sub-committee was impressive but that was over15 years ago.

    So, in the last hour or so I looked at the internet and very much wanted to find independent support for the therapy but have found nothing, thus far. An exception might be the:

    which includes about 90 testimonials. That’s pretty impressive except that most of the therapies were done 15 or more years ago. Considering that Dr. Burzynski has been offering therapy for almost 35 years I wondered if these 90 could have been misdiagnosed to begin with or part of a population that went into inexplicable remission? This apparently happens to hundreds of the millions of cancer sufferers every year. I also wondered about updates. Most of the resolutions appeared to have occurred in the Nineties. Where are they now?

    I noted on this site that desperate people have/are trying to raise huge amounts of money to be enrolled in the trials but Burzynski’s website doesn’t appear to mention anything about cost. Since getting rich is an American religion I didn’t want to think unkindly about the doctor’s personal wealth but I guess I can’t help wondering if his therapies have en-richened him?

    Finally, what motivated Eric Merola to make this inflammatory film?
    Who paid him to make it? How much did it cost? What did he take to the bank? or should those things, like attorney’s fees, be considered immaterial and irrelevant?

    American healthcare is so very depressing and, like housing and the student loan fiascoes, is a bubble that will soon crash. We spend more per capita (as in public education) and have poorer delivery and outcomes than many other countries that spend far less. I want to think of Dr. Burzynski as a pioneer and a rebel who is fighting a cynical, rich establishment on behalf of tragic patients but it appears that he may be very deluded or very cynical. I want to be wrong.

  24. Joe says:

    This Burzinski guy is an idiot. He uses techniques that might have worked on brick and mortar institutions scared of lawsuits, and then turns them on a tech-savvy young worldwide internet community. Oy!

    You want a laugh for the day? Go to Yahoo answers and look up Burnz. Someone asks “Is he a fraud?” and immediately 6-7 responses from random, single-named people show up touting him. Whoever that PR flack is he’s not only stupid but he’s lazy. And stuuuupid.

  25. ken says:

    bob your a scumbag

    narrow minded

    thick headed

    simple as that!!

    If you think this world has evolved to a higher greatness than years god!.do us a favour and take those cancer drugs they administer in hospitals as a cancer free man yourself..if your backing them that much..i bet by christ you wouldnt!.The doctors told me when my father was dyin from cancer and in his last days they turned to us and said “cancer won’t kill your father..the drugs will..which i didn’t understand til now!.cancer=big buisness

  26. Bob says:

    Ken. I’m sorry about your father. They are toxic and powerful drugs that have bad side effects. I imagine that if your father was experiencing organ failure “in the final days” or was especially weak that they might well kill him.

    We know that when you get a bad diagnosis that you don’t have a great choice. But you still have a choice, and I would be extremely, extremely excited if Burzynski had a cure. But look at the tale of woe. I’m not wrong about that.

    By the way, even if cancer were simply “big business,” it wouldn’t make Burzynski’s treatments any more valid. Surely you can appreciate that?

  27. Dave&Janet says:

    My wife and I are trying to learn the truth about Burzynski and have read many blogs and government and Medical Establishment web sites. It is interesting how many of the flame jobs like yours are so popular even though they are clearly not researched, truthful or logical. It seems that mud slinging sells better than truth. Some say that is how to get lots of hits on their site.

    It is also interesting how many of your responders think that you actually did a lot of home work. They have clearly not done much if any.

    The Urine slam:
    If you had read
    you would have known that he has not used urine for 30 years. The blood and urine was early research to learn that these compounds existed. For 30 yrs they have been made from chemicals, just like most, but by no means all, drugs. (See below)

    So you have two choices. Admit that you did not do much home work or that you withheld what you knew. Neither is a pretty choice.

    If you have an honest dislike of urine, then I assume that you have written a big blog about Premarin. That is a cream of vaginally administered estrogens, consisting primarily of estrogens isolated from horse urine. Not just any horse urine, but pregnant female horse urine. Does that frost you too?

    The ‘his patients have died’ slam:
    My wife has advanced ovarian cancer. Pretty much the only kind there is, as 73% are not identified until stage III or worse. She has gone the usual Medical Establishment route of chemo & surgery & more chemo. She went to a very main stream “top doc” at a main stream hospital. Would you like a list of all of his patients who have died? It is a long list. Some of them were good friends of ours. Several more will be going soon, if you want to wait for more. Cancer is not for sissys. Call up MD Anderson or Sloan-Kittering and get their obit list.

    I think it fair to say that nearly all or perhaps all of Dr. Burzynski’s patients are at Death’s Door _before_ they come to him, yet you condemn him when some die. He has a blog where survivors mingle, but you wouldn’t want to mention that. Admit that you either did not do much home work or that you withheld what you knew. Neither is a nice choice.

    In the 1980s the FDA did a major safety audit of the top defibrillator manufacturer’s company, because “32% of the patients that used their defibrillator died the first time!” WOW! If you sold a toothbrush that killed a third of the customers, I’d be worried too. But, these are defibrillators. 100% of the people that use them are dead before they use them. You don’t use them on live people.

    I guess that you have to get up pretty early in the morning to fool the FDA.

    The ‘he charges a lot’ slam:
    I have taken my wife and also for other reasons, my mom, into the ER, in major, recognized hospitals, 5 times in the last 15 months. The last time my mom died. “In an independent study, 20% of the people taken to ERs DIE!!!” Darn those dangerous ERs!

    But back to the high cost of Dr. Burzynski. Each time the bill was $41,000 or more, usually for 3 days in the hospital. Want to write about ERs in major, recognized hospitals? Admit that you did not do much home work about costs or that you withheld what you knew. Neither is a nice choice.

    I think you said that he takes in Millions. How is he supposed to pay the millions for the frivolous lawsuits? Did I miss the rant on how lawyers are getting fat off on that industry?

    More on cost later.

    The ‘Dr. Burzynski cherry picks his results to make himself look good’ slam
    Well, since that is your favorite tactic, it is best to save time and to not go there.

    The Medical Establishment “success(??)” numbers for my wife’s, now recurrent cancer, is half of them dead in 12 months. Two different Top Docs in the local Medical Establishment claim that her best hope is that they can give her 3.5 to 5.5 yrs of chemo and then she will be dead. And that ties her to Seattle. Forget the travel that we had been doing and planned to continue.

    But, Dr. Burzynski says that only 15% his ovarian cancer patients get worse. 62% get better and some are in complete remission. His patients are treated with few if any side effects. He mails you the drugs, so you are not tied to his Clinic. You could travel.

    It sounds like he might be onto something. Does the Medical Establishment jump him for the numbers that he publishes? Not usually. They say things like he does not do enough randomized studies.

    As I understand that term, they want him to doom half of his patients to the grim results of the Medical Establishment, to see if his method works.

    There are thousands of examples of what happens if you go the Medical Establishment route. Why not just compare the results that he gets to theirs? Why does he need to premeditatedly kill half his patients to make the FDA happy? Would you want to sign up for a doctor that does?

    15,000 women will die this year, in the US alone from ovarian cancer. How does it help anyone for him to bump off a few hundred more? We already know a LOT about the Medical Establishment “success(??)” numbers.

    I propose that everyone HONESTLY look at his results and that they BE honest and then we decide. You and the Medical Establishment clearly are not being honest or logical in what is said. Is he? It is very hard to know with sites like yours keeping the water muddy.

    Cancer is a disease where you can do everything right and many still die. Do nothing at all and many still live. Think you have cured it and two years later they die. Give chemo for X and that gives them two new kinds of cancers, but, “Hey, I cured the X.” It is complicated. Perfect mud slinging country.

    We already know that we can absolutely cure every know disease, Mad Cow, cancer, HIV, anything known to Science. Just put the patient in a pressure cooker and cook at pressure for 60 minutes and they are not only cure, but very tender. Works every time.

    However, my wife wants to be fixed without breaking three other things. Fixed without the ‘cure’ being worse than the disease.

    PLEASE try to be part of the solution, not the problem. The solution will only be found with honesty, and constructive participation on all sides. Not cherry picking mud slinging. That is what people do when their only goal is to just get lots of hits on their controversial blog.

    If you are looking for hits on a subject that we might agree on, how about Healthcare in America? How about the fact that often the insurance paid the $41,000 ER bill with $4,100 and the hospital was happy. But, when my wife did not have insurance, the hospital want the full price or else.

    Does that seem fair to you? $4,100 is all the hospital really wants, but if you can’t afford insurance, then they get to move the decimal point over. They want the poor person to pay 10 times as much.

    My wife turned 65 and got a “Medicare Advantage Plan”. BTW, The insurance company is who gets that Advantage mentioned in the name. One odd thing out of many. When a test result came back peculiar, bad peculiar, she wanted a second opinion from a Famous Cancer Center (Medical Establishment, main stream), that is nearby and Nationally recognized. But, her “Medicare Advantage Plan” refuse to pay for that.

    OK, we will pay for it ourselves. But we were told by three different people on three days that “Federal law makes it illegal for us to pay for a second opinion if her “Medicare Advantage Plan” turned her down!” The Feds deny her treatment. That frosts us. How about you?

    So, she changed to a different kind of insurance that does allow it but costs a LOT more. PTL that she had about a week left during the time that Federal Law ALLOWED her to change.

    Do some homework on the fact that Americas pay for healthcare, per capita, over all, counting private insurance, government insurance, medicare, taxes, premiums, band-aids & everything, about twice as much per person than the country that is generally recognized to have best healthcare in the World. But, we have about the 36th best care. That is, 35 countries have better healthcare than we do.

    Keep in mind that Americans pay, on average, 25 times as much per person as the people in the 29th ranked healthcare country pays.

    And in about 74 countries, the average person is healthier than the average American. That deserves a rant IMHO.

    • Pacal says:

      Why has “Dr.” Burzynski been sitting on 30 years of clinical trials? Why has he not fully published them? Why are people charged huge amounts for “clinical trials”. Why does his “Clinic” have nothing but expenses and no income?

      Oh and “Dr” Burzynski does give his patients chemo therapy.

      To me this screams fake and phony.

      • Dave&Janet says:

        >Why has “Dr.” Burzynski been sitting on 30 years of clinical trials? Why has he not fully published them?

        I wonder that also, BUT he HAS finished some of the trials. And they are on Govt websites, not blogs that any 8 yr old can fake.

        >Why are people charged huge amounts for “clinical trials”.

        Many Main Stream trials charge you to be on them. That just means that he is not funded by the trillion dollar Drug Empire. Don’t you need an income? I do, and I do not need to be paying millions to layers to stay in business.

        >Why does his “Clinic” have nothing but expenses and no income?

        I do not understand what you are asking there. He takes in money and pays out money. Can you re-phrase that?

        >Oh and “Dr” Burzynski does give his patients chemo therapy.

        What do you call chemo therapy? I call it giving a poison that hopefully kills the particular cancer faster than the patient. I have no problem with that A) if it works & B) if it is the best known choice.

        A good friend had Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma 7 years ago. Her Mainstream Medical Establishment doctor said that there was only one treatment that worked. It involved a chemo that the staff dressed in Haz-Mat suits, space suits, to administer it, “because if it touches human skin, it poisons that skin and that area must be immediately removed by a plastic surgeon.”

        (Please don’t bother saying that is wrong. We have no idea, but that is what she was told and believes. They certainly WERE in Haz-Mat suits.)

        Her hair all fell out and many of the other “chemo symptoms” followed.

        Anyway, the cancer went away quickly and she has been perfectly fine ever since. (See A & B above)

        But, Dr. Burzynski (I am told) usually gives things that have few to no side effects. He does not remove the cancer by surgery, but by healing the tumor. He tries to turn off the cellular error that is making those cells be cancer. I believe that most of his methods are not what anyone would call chemo. I hope that he would use the best available technology to save a life. If that was chemo, then I have no problem.

        I will know more when we have actual experience.

        >To me this screams fake and phony.

        To me, all of the screams that I hear, every one, are from his detractors. They usually only have at best 5% valid fears IMHO. Of the several law suits that I have tried to read (they are not easy for me) they seem to have nothing to do with real dangers.

        He says that he is being harassed. So far, I agree. I am certain that things like the original post on this thread is 99% nonsense, but he still COULD be a fraud. I just wish that I could get some help getting to the truth instead of the nonsense that is 90% of the content of what his detractors spout.

        I have seen a very few that question that he really gets the results that he claims. I would love to know the honest answer to that, but how do I get it? I certainly to not trust the Medical Establishment or the “I’m from the Govt. I’m here to help you.” I have lots of examples of those two groups being liars. I’d rather not get distracted with listing them.

        My questions have always been A) how often does it really work & B) what is the down side.

        What else matters?

  28. Bob says:

    Dave, I know that you have had a bad experience. I really hope that you have not abandoned real medicine for Burzynski.

    • Dave&Janet says:

      Thanks for the condolence. I would correct the “have had” to “are having”. The nightmare is far from over.

      I am not abandoning ANYTHING that works. The “real medicine” folks give her at best 5 yrs for the 50% mortality. The “real medicine” folks agree that she should not have any “real medicine” for months. Not until she has physical symptoms.

      Several of our “real medicine” doctors say give Dr. Burzynski a try. Since most insurance has an excuse to not pay for it, it will be very expensive to us, but if she is dead the money is wasted anyway.

      She has already gotten her CA125 down from 624 to 304 in 23 days even before Dr. Burzinski. We hope that is her “original equipment” immune system, finally getting on with healing her body. Many “real medicine” folks, any honest one, will tell you that THEY have never healed anyone. Their only goal is to help the body get back to a place where it can heal itself.

      The trick is to figure out how to help the body get back to a place where it can heal itself.

      We should all be working toward learning what is really true. That is all I am trying to do. I honestly intend my rant about your rant about Dr. Burzynski to be from a friend to a friend as constructive. Not a flame job. If it does not sound that way, please forgive my poor language skills.

  29. Bob says:

    “He says that he is being harassed. So far, I agree. I am certain that things like the original post on this thread is 99% nonsense, but he still COULD be a fraud.”

    This is easy to check. I made it as easy as I could for you to follow up on it. Go. Check. If I’m wrong, tell me. But go check before you assign a number to how wrong I am.

    • Dave&Janet says:

      Well, Bob, as I said earlier, I have been ‘checking’ for some weeks now and I do not agree that you gave Dr. Burzynski anything like an unbiased representation. But, I will be happy to keep you posted as to how my opinions change. If I switch to your view, I will be happy to say so. I care not an atom which side wins. I care more that anything which one is correct! I ONLY want to know the truth, especially because the life of someone that I love more than you can imagine, depends on getting it right. No stress there.

      I have watched 73 minutes of the film at the top of
      and so far I find it spot on.

      You will surely see it as a blatant propaganda piece, but so far, my considered opinion, based on a whole lot more research than most of the Blog piranhas, is that it is a fair and accurate appraisal.

      FYI: The FDA admits under oath, that his stuff works astoundingly well and that it does not harm. So far in the movie, variously, the FDA or Texas Medical Board have tried to take him to court at least 8 times that the Grand Jury said that the FDA had no case and refused to indite. When they did indite, he was acquitted. Over and over again.

      The FDA once asked him to do a Phase II Study and then tried him and failed to send him to jail for shipping his drugs across State lines or some similar nonsense. I do not recall the exact situation.

      Clearly Dr. Burzynski’s fans put together the best presentation that they could, but have a look with an open mind. The first 73 min are great, at least to me. I look forward to seeing the rest.

      There are Doctors for the FDA and LA Fraud cops that think he is a genius. Please look further than the “let’s all gang up on someone and tear off a piece” mentality of many blogs. Like some of the others, you may think that it gets you lots of hits, but this guy is saving lives.

  30. Bob says:

    To be fair, your opinion of my piece is not “considered” until you check my facts. I am dead earnest. Check my work. These are the people I could find.

    I am aware of the Burzynksi patient group. And they present anecdotes. Anecdotes are not evidence that can possibly prove efficacy. They just aren’t. The problem is that you are starting with only a biased sample, people who have 1) been to Burzynski, and 2) are still alive. Whether or not those two things are related are as of yet unproved.

    Check my work before you say I am being biased. I gave you all of my links; please click on them.

  31. Dave&Janet says:

    OK. I again started down the original blog post and all I see are many links to people that died (is it 15?), over a long period of time. 1998 to now. Just over one a year. You say there that in all your research, you only found one that did not die. Many died before starting treatment, but of course that is his fault too. Is that often the case on your list?

    But now you say “I am aware of the Burzynksi patient group.” and that you knew of the groups that lists a lot of survivors. Survivors with email addresses. But, how can you say that you only found one, but that you knew of many happy customers. I am already confused and trying hard not to use the L word. But, I have to ask. “Are you explaining to me that you are lying to us?????” How can that admission help you cause? Please do not lie. Mistakes I can forgive, but not lies.

    Oh, if the cause is only to get hits, then you could be right. But I may be nearly done here. I was trying to communicate. You were shopping for hits. Or what exactly?

    I see the previously mentioned incorrect “urine” information several times, which you now seem to say that you knew was false.

    “He’s been running “clinical trials” on people with extracts from urine for decades.”

    And then you say that you don’t know who he is or if he is even the one that you are thinking of
    “Is this the same guy? I don’t know. I don’t care.” Cute.

    You want to tell lies about someone that you don’t know or care who he, she or it, is??? No, you did say guy. You think the gender is correct.

    I see quotes like:

    “However, the £200,000 being raised looked like it was earmarked to send little Billie to a clinic in Texas to enrol in a trial that was using an unproven and questionable form of urine-based treatment.” (November 24, 2011 )

    “Someone who apparently represents this unproven piss peddler then released a barrage of positively unhinged rants and threats against not only Andy, but also his family. This bloke doesn’t seem to understand that not only do we have the right to question Burzynski’s “miraculous” treatments, but an obligation to question them.” (November 26th, 2011 )

    “The website Quackwatch has raised concerns about the origin of Burzynski’s claimed PhD.” This is the expert that still thinks that he is talking about an “ this unproven piss peddler”, you want me to click on his opinion? He has not gotten the easy stuff right, but you think he has something right???

    One link had a quote that caught my eye. “…wouldn’t be so stupid as to write a spittle-flecked screed like the one above…” There seem to be a lot of blogs writing spittle-flecked screed against Dr. Burzynski. Why do you think that make more hits than going after actual inequities like America’s Healthcare? I guess only Americans would care and most don’t seem to care. You probably prefer the International audience. Well, this is your art form, I am just trying to find truth and it seems non-existent here.

    You suggest that I look at links with lines like outrage that anyone would send “…. Lewis recieved the first of a series of nasty, threatening, unprofessional emails…” Is that the professional UK spelling? (I before e except after c).

    Well, we certainly wouldn’t want nasty unprofessional support of an unproven piss peddler. One that it is cause of the moment to flame with blogs that it sure seems that you are saying were premeditatedly false. I seem to recall “positively unhinged rants” mentioned.

    Yes, I have seen some. I have spent too much time on one in particular.

    “I am dead earnest. Check my work.” Is that like the play, “The importance of being Earnest.”?

    Unless you talk some sense, I am done trying to communicate with you. I think that I have checked your work, Earnest. Oh, Earnest is dead. Sorry, you are Bob.

    I am getting grumpy. Please forgive me. I will try to leave you to hit mining.

    If you can communicate in an honest manner, I may come back, but probably that is not something that you do.

    • Pacal says:

      There is no reason giving the above screed to take anything you say the slightest bit seriously.

      Oh and my comment about income versus expenses is from the report concerning his company which listed only expenses and no income. That is suspicious in and of itself.

      • Dave&Janet says:

        Pacal, you remind me of a line in a magazine that I read: “Asked by Galileo to look through his telescope at the newly discovered four moons of Jupiter, a representative of the pope answered: “I refuse to look at something which my religion tells me cannot exist.”

        BTW I see that only as a slam of closed mindedness. As shown on this blog.

        Another thought comes from a line in the book on technical rock climbing, “Basic Rockcraft “…You better learn to see the world as it really is, and not what you want it to be, or one day you will see the ground coming up at you very quickly…”

        In my case, if you have a loved one who has cancer, you’d better do some better research than Bob’s circular reasoning collection of links to other mindless slammer blogs. Any 6 yr old can publish and apparently many are. And they can get other children to jump on the Bandwagon.

        But, also be suspicious of the Trillion dollar cancer industry and their minions too. You must analyze and put on your thinking cap. I suggest that you refer to my original rebuttal of the posting that where Bob now says that he deliberately misled us. I appreciate that belated honesty.

  32. Bob says:

    Everything I said is true and consistant. I have misled nobody and I resent being misrepresented. I was only looking at the people who appeared with search terms “Burzynski and cancer” in LexisNexis Academic. These are the people who showed up. Period. That’s my group of hits. I’m not dragging in an infomercial because it is not a part of my sample.

    You are angry but are taking it out on the wrong people. I hope I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure you are killing your wife.

    • Dave&Janet says:

      Odd that when I do that exact search there, I get “No documents found that match your query.”

      You veracity plummets.

      Litmus test:
      I will repeat that anyone that disparages Dr; Burzynski with the word urine has NOT done any research or is deliberately misleading.

  33. Dave&Janet says:

    Sorry I was in the wrong search window. My Litmus Test still applies.
    Have you not told me that you read the FDA site saying that he has not used urine for 30+ yrs, but yet you say that he does and link as proof other sites that say that?

  34. Bob says:

    No. I never said that about the FDA. And it’s utterly besides the point about whether or not Burzynski’s treatment works.

  35. Dave&Janet says:

    >I never said that about the FDA.
    Sorry. that was my faulty memory. I thought that you said that you had read

    Why not have a look? I am amazed that you have not seen it or similar data.

    >it’s utterly besides the point about whether or not Burzynski’s treatment works.

    Please summarize your point then? I misunderstood.

    As I said above “My questions have always been A) how often does it really work & B) what is the down side.”

    “What else matters?”

    That is still my position.

  36. Bob says:

    Do yourself a favor and read this. Burzynski falls into just about every category on this anti-quackery checklist.

  37. Pacal says:

    Thanks for the Galileo gambit. Its belongs in the bin of tired cliches. Oh and don’t assume I haven’t read “Dr” Burzynski’s stuff, its almost has convincing as Dr. H. Clarks.

  38. […] publicly available cases of patients who went to Burzynski and did not survive. It’s a depressing read, and these are stories we don’t see, even from much of the mainstream press. In the process, […]

  39. […] Stanislaw Burzynski’s public record RJB, Skeptical Humanities, 26/11/11 […]

  40. […] as being success stories very frequently turn out, when someone follows up on them later, to be nothing of the sort. Often they turn out to be dead of their […]

  41. […] as being success stories very frequently turn out, when someone follows up on them later, to be nothing of the sort. Often they turn out to be dead of their […]

  42. […] Burzynski and "Antineoplastons" Stanislaw Burzynski – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Stanislaw Burzynski This is a good thread in a medical forum about him and the latest news on what he's been up to: […]

  43. James Smith says:

    You gave examples of people dying while trying to raise money for treatement. No details of any treatment they recieved from Burzynski. No Information in this article.
    In The popular film he only claims the treatment can only cure 27% of patients and If any parson even for an infection gets treatment when the body is too sick from the desese will die.
    I am trying to look at this from a open perspective. I want to see convincing evedence it doesn’t work, also evidence it does work.
    Where all the money goes, why so expencive and what happens with it.
    Maybe he has a cure, I havent seen anything yet to show he is a con artist?
    He couldent just say to every pharmasutical company use may patent no charge. Because if one company had to invest millions in trials, they would loose out bcause when approuved their rivals would also be able to sell the product.
    There is a point that it isn’t in the big corporations advantage for this to go to market at the moment.
    If this drug was infact a cure why doesn’t he just take the patent to another country like china to run clinical trials?
    I saw the video and I am now reading and just get question marks.
    Either way Dr Burzynski deserves a medal, either for curing cancer or being the best con man on the plannet. I hope its for the cure

    • Bob says:

      You gave examples of people dying while trying to raise money for treatement. No details of any treatment they recieved from Burzynski. No Information in this article.

      The links have that. Take Georgia, the 8-year old from Australia. She went. She’s gone. Go through my sources. Don’t take my word for it.

      In The popular film he only claims the treatment can only cure 27% of patients and If any parson even for an infection gets treatment when the body is too sick from the desese will die.

      Yeah, what I’ve looked at doesn’t bear that statement out, and he can’t say that he’s going to “cure” anyone. That’s not what real doctors do or say. That’s what a con says. A miracle cure for those without hope.

      I am trying to look at this from a open perspective. I want to see convincing evedence it doesn’t work, also evidence it does work.

      I want to see evidence that it works. PLEASE WORK! But he’s been running the scam for 20+ years and hasn’t published. I’ve given you a sample of his patients selected by whether or not they had to beg to raise money to pay him. And now they are all dead. HE WON’T PUBLISH, so there is no scientific evidence that it does work.

      Where all the money goes, why so expencive and what happens with it.

      You mean the fact that patients MAKE CHECKS OUT TO HIM? MASSIVE RED FLAG!!! And it shouldn’t be expensive. The active ingredient is easily isolated from urine.

      Maybe he has a cure, I havent seen anything yet to show he is a con artist?

      20 years. No published results. The lack of evidence that he is legit demonstrates to me he has nothing to offer other than poverty.

      He couldent just say to every pharmasutical company use may patent no charge. Because if one company had to invest millions in trials, they would loose out bcause when approuved their rivals would also be able to sell the product.

      That’s not how it works. If he has the patent, he has rights that he can defend. He would become the world’s first trillionaire, because cancer is the one disease that everyone is going to get eventually.

      There is a point that it isn’t in the big corporations advantage for this to go to market at the moment. If this drug was infact a cure why doesn’t he just take the patent to another country like china to run clinical trials?

      Why not? Good point. I’d love to see that research. You can’t suck money from the poor, however.

      I saw the video and I am now reading and just get question marks.
      Either way Dr Burzynski deserves a medal, either for curing cancer or being the best con man on the plannet. I hope its for the cure.

      He has nothing to offer and deserves prison. He would be a god among oncologists if he had a cure. After all, big pharma execs, oncologists and other doctors are all future cancer patients. They have a huge stake in this too.

      You want to read a cool book about how big a scam can be, read Charlatan. This guy implanted _goat testicles_ into people for decades. Huge scam of epic proportions, and he didn’t even have a sciency word like “antineoplaston.” This should show you that desperate people will believe anything. ANYTHING. EVEN GOAT BALLS, FFS.


      • What I hope everyone but “Bob” understands is that “Bob” does not want you you to know the truth. I need to drive to Seattle and cannot waste enough time to easily rebut “Bob’s” lies, but I found 115 scolarly publications that mention Dr Burzynski since 1994. He authored many of them.

        He knows, or has chosen NOT to look at the link I provided that urine has not been used since 1980, yet he does not remove the false info in the early part of this blog. And so on and so on.

        Please do not waste any more time here. We have been to Buzynski and he is not a fake, quack, etc, but “Bob” is.

        Dave & Janet

  44. Bob says:

    I’m not lying. You can check my sources. I’m not worried about the pee. Pump me full of piss straight from the tap if it will cure my cancer. But it doesn’t.

    Check out cancer research UK’s site:

    I see that you are there now, and that he is currently sucking money out of your wallet. I’m very, very sorry for everything that you are going through. I have no confidence that Burzynski will be able to help Janet and hope that I am wrong. Be aware that initial reactions to treatments correlate very poorly to outcomes. He’s banking on your misery without offering you anything in return, and I will not forgive him for that.


    • Scott says:

      I am amazed at some of the ridiculous, baseless comments made in this blog.
      “The piss doctor”, really??? Apparently the ignorant individual making this comment must be living in a cave and unaware of the medication given to women called Premarin which is made from female horse urine.

      I can’t understand how people can be so stupid to think that Burzynski can perform clinical trials for free when he has NOT received one penny from any U.S. Government agency as a subsidy to further his research.

      The FDA receives hundreds of millions of dollars in application fees from pharmaceutical companies every year to get their “new” drugs approved and on the open market.
      Gee, how much money do you think that CBS, NBC and ABC get in the course of a year from pharmaceutical companies to advertise their products; do you think the TV networks want to see any of that revenue dry up?

      Make no mistake, Cancer treatment is an industry all to itself and generates hundreds of billions of dollars for all those involved. What are they (doctors, lab technicians, drug manufacturers) going to do if a cure is brought to light? start to install vinyl siding, new thermal pane windows and roofs?

      Burzynski represents a major financial threat to all of them.

      I don’t want to even start thinking about all the politicians that have their hand in the Cancer industry pie.

  45. Bob says:

    The Premarin point has been made and refuted repeatedly, so let’s skip that one. Just read the comment you are responding to.

    “I can’t understand how people can be so stupid to think that Burzynski can perform clinical trials for free when he has NOT received one penny from any U.S. Government agency as a subsidy to further his research.”

    If he were a real threat, he’d totally make it up on the treatment end, wouldn’t he? That’s how capitalism and R&D pay off. That’s how hundred billion dollar corporations are made. Or, on the other hand, why aren’t drug companies just taking his idea, patenting it, and using it (or just burying it)? Antineoplastons have been described. They exist. Why aren’t the thieves taking it? Hell, why haven’t they disappeared him, if they are so happy to let people suffer and he is such a threat?

    Your assumption that we could possibly run out of cancer is absurd. We are never going to run out of cancer patients. Cancer is built into our DNA (or emerges from it when DNA is damaged). It mutates and is a constantly moving target. You don’t worry. But that will make cancer treatment the single most lucrative financial venture in history.

    Don’t trust the government. That’s fine. Don’t trust the media. That’s fine. Every single person who works for them is, statistically, eventually going to be a future cancer patient. Really. That’s the nature of the disease. You live long enough, eventually one mutated cell or another will sneak past your immune system. But realize that your claims requires assuming that for some utterly suicidal reason all of these hundreds of thousands of people have decided to suppress a successful (or even just promising) cancer cure. This is your contention?

    Show me.

    Show me a single document. A single leak that shows that the FDA is worried about curing cancer. Show me a single contract or legal document that proves collusion between drug companies and the media. Show me the money trail for a politician who is making money directly off of people dying of cancer. (Not “invested in drug companies”…if you have an index fund, you too are benefiting in the same way.) Show me the quid quo pro. Show me. If this is your argument, then, goddamn it, show me.


  46. ccdev says:

    Dear Bob,

    i’m not for or against Dr.Burzy. but based on your fluffy last reply, i have to say i don’t have time to educate you on the whole issue but this….

    if someone has to show you all that stuff (“Show me a single document…..”, then that means you think the FDA is working for the interest of the american public, and Big Pharmas are just full of lovely people wanting to cure the world of cancer and make it a better place. poor fellow….Just go check (if you have the initiative) the list of FDA top arses and the Pharma big shots, and see if there is a nice comfortable relationship between them people. Kinda reminds me of they collusion in banking industry ie the investment bank head honchos and the Fed reserve. You writing is clear, but so is your lack of know how about the interconnected world of politics & business.

    And this “Every single person who works for them is, statistically, eventually going to be a future cancer patient.” it’s supposedly one in 3 isn’t it? what makes government workers so ‘special’ that they have extra chance of catching cancer?

    Just ‘fess up. you got caught out with your biased reporting. trying to fluff your way out isn’t exactly helping. if you want to prove a person is not a quack, you got to do better than running around like a headless chicken.

    • Bob says:

      I don’t think you are capable of educating me on this, but if you aren’t going to bother to show me your evidence that there is active collusion against Americans on the part of…hell, you haven’t even given me a single name… you’re not worth talking to. What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

      Re: everyone getting cancer. I stand by my assertion. Most people die of something else before cancer gets them, but if you live long enough, eventually you will die of cancer. It’s in the cards. And let’s say that there is only a 1 in 3 chance of ever possibly getting cancer (anyone can get it, in reality, but whatever), how does that strengthen your point? And how does it make Burzynski’s treatment work?

      Prove your point to me. Educate me. Don’t just expect me to believe your word, oh person on the Internet. Show me the collusion. That’s the burden of proof you’ve accepted by telling me there is a conspiracy. Now just show me it, and if your sources check out, I’ll be furious with Big Pharma for putting me at risk. But until then, I’ll wait for you to show me what you have.

      • Bob you have a flaw in your blog. I get these emails of replies to posts, but it is not obvious which post is being answered. I will send this one and then see if replying in the blog is better than in my email program.

        I certainly agree with
        >I don’t think you are capable of educating me on this,…

        I doubt that anyone can. What is your goal? Your point?

        >show me your evidence that there is active collusion against Americans on the part of…

        How about these snips from the sound track of the Burzynski movie? Note that they date from 1995.

        Rick Jaffe, Burzynski’s attorney – Congressional Subcommittee hearing, July 25, 1995 (continued):
        They presented the evidence to the grand jury, no indictment. In 1986 they come back and seize another 100,000 documents, no indictment. In 1990, another grand jury, either the second or the third, they present more documents, Dr. Burzynski testifies extensively before the grand jury, no indictment. In 1991 to 1993, the FDA investigates Dr. Burzynski, we don’t know if evidence was presented to another grand jury. 1994, another grand jury, no indictment. 1995, another grand jury, this grand jury started in March of this year, on March 25th I believe it was Dr. Burzynski along with a few of his patients appeared on CBS Show This Morning…


        Rick Jaffe, Burzynski’s attorney – Congressional Subcommittee hearing, July 25, 1995 (continued):
        May, June, and July more witnesses testify before the grand jury, more documents. So we’ve had now—four, five, or six grand juries. Let me talk about the subpoena practices: most recently, the FDA has now subpoenaed the medical records of every patient who has gone on TV and told their story about Dr. Burzynski. We’ll let the committee judge what they think of that. Let’s talk about dissemination of false information by the FDA, in 1985 the FDA tells anyone who calls inquiring about Dr. Burzynski that he’s being criminally investigated. When the judge in the case found out about that, he issued a cease and desist and a strong reprimand against that.
        The FDA now has refined this tactic, instead of waiting for people to call up the FDA, what they’d done is subpoena all the records from Dr. Burzynski about his business associates and all the researchers around the world, and there are many of them who are researching Antineoplastons—his therapy. Now what they are doing is systematically contacting everyone, who does business with him, or who may do business with him, and telling about the grand jury investigations and subpoenaing documents. I believe that they are doing this in order to make it more difficult for him to do business.
        I’d like the following questions to be asked to the FDA: how much money have they spent in the last ten years to try to put Dr. Burzynski out of business? How many documents can they subpoena? And how many more grand juries does he have to go to? And why can’t patients, who have advanced cancer, seek the medical treatment of their choice?

        Oversight & Investigations Subcommittee Hearings 11/15/95; Hon. Joe Barton:
        In my opinion, you have every right to use the investigative authority and the judicial resources of the federal government to the justice department convene a grand jury, that’s very appropriate, the first time, perhaps even the second time, it becomes questionable the third time, the fourth time, and the fifth time, it is not I think an illogical conclusion to think that the FDA has a vendetta against Dr. Burzynski, or wants to retaliate for some reason, now that’s my opinion. How many grand jury investigations have to occur, that result in no finding of fault before you as commissioner of the FDA would encourage those within your organization to cease and desist?


        Hon. Joe Barton = Congressman Barton =

        Why should we go to any trouble to prove conspiracy, when you will not remove the numerous, easily provable falsehoods from your rant?

  47. ccdev says:

    sorry “if you want to prove a person is a quack, you got to do better than running around like a headless chicken.”, bob.

  48. Some very well credentialed experts in the field of cancer, like Nicholas J. Patronas, MD
    Senior Clinician
    Chief, Section of Neuroradiology
    say that Dr. Burzynski has astounding success where no one else in the World can.

    So, my question is, why should I believe “Bob” and not believe Dr. Patronas? You say that
    >it’s utterly besides the point about whether or not Burzynski’s treatment works.

    So I will ask again, like I did Dec 12 2011

    Please summarize your point then?

    Your post is filled with things that are obviously false, like all of the BS about Piss Doctor yet you refuse to delete these known falsehoods. If you want people to remember just how far off base you once were you can just draw lines through the redacted parts and we can see and remember how far your education has come, But, to knowingly tout (or is it spout) falsehoods is called lying.

    Which I why we all want to know your point. Not your sarcasm. Experts say Dr. Burzynski’s methods DO work. I have met people that have been saved by Dr. Burzynski’s methods. So, why the venom and call to mindless people everywhere to join you on the Bandwagon of hate?

    Why has “Bob” gone to so much trouble to spread false info that can get people killed?

    Please summarize your point.

  49. Bob says:

    One guy’s say-so doesn’t a cancer cure make, no matter how much you wish it would. MY say-so doesn’t make Burzynski a fraud. Check his claim against the sample I provided. The only thing they have in common is that they appeared in the news begging for money to see this guy. That’s it. Not related to their tumor or outcome. And it happened to be that nearly all of their outcomes were bad. You want to say I’m wrong, you need to go and show that these people are alive.

    There are people who have seen Burzynski and who are alive. That is a completely different matter from whether or not there are people who are alive because they saw him. You are assuming that it was Burzynski’s doing they lived, but that’s what we’re trying to prove. Your conclusion is built into your assumption, the logical fallacy of begging the question.

    I’m very sorry for you and your wife, David. You are delivered into the hands of a monster at your worst hour. You are vulnerable and he is pretending to give you hope. I will not forgive him for that.


  50. >One guy’s say-so doesn’t a cancer cure make, no matter how much you wish it would.

    Obviously. But my question is I hear Bob say he is a quack and I hear an NIH expert say that he is a genius. Why should I listen to Bob. Actually, what is Bob’s motive for his venom?

    Bob what is your point? Your reason for this rant?

  51. Kevin Sharum says:

    I agree such claims of a “cure” for cancer have to be rigorously scrutinized. I also think Burzynski has seen the most negative from the medical,pharmaceutical,and the FDA bureaucrats. The ‘cure” issue has been heard in a public forum of legal trials and public hearings.The FDA’s behavior on this profound issue, has at the very least been unethical. Though the FDA “mission” is “public safety” they have given little trust this has ever been their “mission.” In fact,it has proven quite collusive. As for Dr.Burzynski’s behavior,since he has been investigated numerous times by state and federal officials, it is reasonable for him to infer that he is under attack from many high powered entities,but instead of running like a thief,he has stayed and fought. What matters are the results. As for statements on “Burzynski’s Failures”
    please go to any Oncologist in the world and you will find even more patient mortality. As for the Burzynski clinic “charging patient’s for services,” this no different than any cancer treatment center in the U.S. I say, remove the FDA from this equation and all issues would be resolved. This is what counts.

  52. Amanda says:

    Not once have I seen Dr. Burzynski claim to have cured 100% of his patients. If “Bob” had watched Dr. Burzynskis video then he would see the statistics of patients he has cured, to patients that have lived past one year, two years, or five years. He will also see the statistics of the patients that have lived one year, two years, and five years just from radiation and chemotherpy. The problem is that most people get to the Burzynskis clinic after they have exhausted every other alternative. Then once they get there and someone is cured “Bob” says “how do you know it wasn’t from the chemotherapy and radiation treatment that sent it into remission?”, but then if someone dies then it is “Dr. Burzynskis just a quack and you should of gone to him in the first place.” There is no winning with “Bob”. He is one who has his blinders on and can’t see through the trees. Do you realize Chemotherapy has been used since the 40s. With all the billions of dollars being poured into cancer research every year, and with all the technology that has improved just over the last 20 years alone…….why hasn’t there been a “team of experts” with the knowledge of this disease, been able to come up with a non-primitive way and get a better “regiman” if you will. It took a man from poland to discover something, a “team of experts” didn’t discover. The lack of amino acids, and specific pepitides that are non existent or lacking in cancer patients, and healthy people have an abbundance of them. And yes the way he found them was in blood and urine. Nobody talks about the blood part just the urine part which I think is quite funny. As far as I’m concerned this man is the only man that has been progressing in finding a new aged driven cure and it has been working……not for all people, but alot more than the average cancer patient who has gone or is going through radiation and chemotherapy. And he has found a way to decrease side effects, which is an added bonus to the non evasive radiation. And for cost…….everything costs money. This man is not funded by the government like many cancer research facilities, etc. He is doing all of his research without a “hand out” if you will. I’m sorry but if you live in the states and you don’t have insurance you are considered a “write off” to any medical institution. You pay out the ass for a 2-3 day stay. Well over what Dr. Burzynski is charging. And those hospitals that you have to give thousands upon thousands of dollars back to after your stay is complete…….are funded by the government are they not? Everyone has the right to choose what kind of care they want, and to be informed of every different kind of care out there for their disease.

  53. Bob says:

    “Not once have I seen Dr. Burzynski claim to have cured 100% of his patients.”

    Not once did I say he had claimed that.

    “If “Bob” had watched Dr. Burzynskis video then he would see the statistics of patients he has cured, to patients that have lived past one year, two years, or five years. He will also see the statistics of the patients that have lived one year, two years, and five years just from radiation and chemotherpy.”

    Why would I trust him? Haver him send his results to the New England Journal of Medicine. Take for example this statement:

    I cure cancer patients all the time.

    See? Anyone can say ANYTHING. He needs to have it vetted by his peers, or as I suspect, his betters. And he hasn’t. For 30 years. He is a con artist, and he’s damned well going to lose his license next month for it.

    “The problem is that most people get to the Burzynskis clinic after they have exhausted every other alternative. Then once they get there and someone is cured “Bob” says “how do you know it wasn’t from the chemotherapy and radiation treatment that sent it into remission?”, but then if someone dies then it is “Dr. Burzynskis just a quack and you should of gone to him in the first place.” There is no winning with “Bob”.”

    Enough with the quotes around my name. I’m Bob. Jeezis.

    You don’t say, “I went to Dr. B’s and then I got better, therefore he made me get better.” That’s simply not how it works. He needs to have his treatment submitted to large scale trials. This is how you know it was him and not the treatment that all of his prior patients have already had or a spontaneous remission. If he sees enough patients, he’ll have some remissions in that population. The problem is, when I went to an essentially random sampling of his patients, those who advertised in the newspaper that they needed money before that jerkweed would let them in the door, nearly EVERYONE DIED. You hear that?

    “There is no winning with “Bob”.”

    WRONG. He could have a paper showing efficacy reviewed in a credible journal. You would think Dr Awesome would silence his critics and just freaking do it. But he apparently can’t, and because he won’t I will not give him the benefit of the doubt.

    Every modern medical procedure goes through this vetting process. Why should this guy be exempt? Tell me that. Why doesn’t he have to live up to the same standard of evidence as everyone else? All I want is the normal review process for antineoplastons. That’s all.

    If it works, charge whatever you like. But he needs to prove it works at all. Anecdotes aren’t enough. He also needs to separate his treatments’ results from those of the chemo/radiation in the people who have come to see him.


  54. Manc says:

    Dear Bob,

    Please can you check the IP addresses of the commenters? A couple sound very familiar.

    Whenever Burz is mentioned on other blogs, multiple Burz “fans” always turn up to rant about Big Pharma conspiracies and defend this revolting charlatan living in his $6m mansion of lies.

    Oddly enough, they are frequently found to be all sharing the same PC, located in or very near to Houston, Texas.

    Horrible, horrible man.

  55. […] can indeed cure cancer. i do hope you havent been recommending that quack to anyone you know…public-record/ Highly evolved amoeba and a Bastard by any other name Reply With Quote […]

  56. Andrea says:

    The US Govt spends 60 million trying to indict this man, and can’t find any good reason to. The FDA says themselves that they are not questioning whether or not it works, they were really trying to get him in jail so they could steal what he had already patented. And with the help of Burzynsky’s ex-employee the US Govt did steal it and patented what he already patented. How does that work? Get a clue people. The FDA is a joke! They pharmaceutical companies will do whatever they have to in order to keep their pockets lined. Burzysky has never got a dime of funding. therefore his costs are outrageous, why do you think he charges so much? People should do a little more research of their
    own before they speak on a subject.;

    • Dave & Janet on ALEGRIA says:

      Amen! There seem to be a lot of folks that just love to tear something down. So, when they find a bandwagon of like minded folks, they jump on. Research of the facts, just get in the way.

    • Bob says:

      Andrea, please show me where the FDA said that they want his patent.

      Also, you are conflating a bunch of groups that have different business interests, especially the FDA and pharmaceutical companies.

      “why do you think he charges so much?”
      So that he can live in a $6 million, 15000 sq ft, 15 bathroom/sauna/swimming pool mansion in a gated 10 acre residence. Pictures here:
      The property reports are public. Don’t talk to me about “lining pockets,” Andrea.


  57. […] Stanislaw Burzynski’s public record ( […]

  58. […] Stanislaw Burzynski’s public record ( […]

  59. Peter says:

    “On Nov. 1, the Irish Times reported that one patient had to raise EUR 50,000. Keith Gibbons’ friends are still trying to raise money, but I’ve seen no update of his progress. ” poor Keith died in Dec 2011:

  60. Peter says:

    “On 5 June [2011], The Sunday Express reported that Luna Petagine needed to raise $20,000 to just find out if she was eligible for the unproved treatment”
    Poor Luna died on 8th August. Her diary with her bravery, her parents love, efforts and struggles – and their targic belief in Burzinski – is heartbreaking.
    With Billie Bainbridge, Supatra Adler, Keith Gibbons and now Luna, won’t some MSM pick this up?

  61. samone says:

    So much money has been dumped into cancer research and all we have is chemo and radiation-barbaric treatments that are not effective. This logic that if a patient went to Dr. B and got better, that they would have healed anyway can be applied to chemo and radiation as well. The reality is that we do not have a good treatment method to treat cancer despite oncologists, National Inst. of Cancer, Breast cancer walk. We should be supporting innovation, not tearing it down. If someone has cancer and wants to try Dr. B’s treatment, or acupuncture, herbs etc. they should have the right to do so without people preventing them. When you are that sick, you should try everything because there is no absolute treatment that has been proven effective. In fact these drugs that have been proven effective often have severe side effects that later cause them to be pulled from the market. There is no perfect science when it comes to health and healing. I say let the public decide what is best for themselves. There is a chance you are wrong Bob. It sounds like you are certain, but you may be wrong. Even if it is a small chance, why would you be so obstinent? There are no guarentees in life. The fact that Dr. B has a big house and makes money has nothing to do with it. He deserves a good living. I am sure the head of the FDA, big pharma have bigger houses-but they don’t seem to be in question on this blog. What is your angle Bob? Why are so angry and closed minded? If you ever get sick and the doctors tell you that they can’t do anything for you, I hope your mind opens at that point. Life has a way of humbling us all in those moments. I guarentee you will pay every cent you have for your health-and you should. Health is the most important thing. Without it you have nothing. With it, you can live another day, make more money etc.There is no 100% cure, there are just different treatment options. Options are a good thing.

  62. Bob says:

    “So much money has been dumped into cancer research and all we have is chemo and radiation-barbaric treatments that are not effective.”

    First part: not relevant. Barbaric? Yes, they are staggeringly unpleasant. However, they are more effective than Burzynski’s ANPs. He also uses chemo cocktails, by the way, which invalidates any claim to the efficacy of his damned wee treatment.

    “We should be supporting innovation, not tearing it down. If someone has cancer and wants to try Dr. B’s treatment, or acupuncture, herbs etc. they should have the right to do so without people preventing them.”

    30 years and no reviewed evidence is NOT innovation–it’s the new standard of stagnation and failure. And patients should have a right to make medical decisions, yes, but they should not be told that ANP or acupuncture or aroma therapy have any efficacy whatsoever, as there is no evidence that there is efficacy.You must allow patients to make an INFORMED decision.

    “In fact these drugs [I imagine that you are talking about chemo–Bob] that have been proven effective often have severe side effects that later cause them to be pulled from the market.”

    Sometimes. But there is no evidence that B’s treatment works or is anything more than a money sink that draws on patients’ desperation! You think he’s going to pull his DECADES OLD UNPROVEN TREATMENT?

    “The fact that Dr. B has a big house and makes money has nothing to do with it. He deserves a good living.”

    He has proved nothing. His patients almost all die. The ones who appear in the media begging for money are almost all dead–I have one old case confirmed living? And he’s been using chemo cocktails. He parades a vanishingly small number of supposed cures, but he’s never published anything reputable. He’s earned nothing.

    The “choice is a good thing” is so asinine that I’m going to just leave it. Feeble.


    • Pacal says:

      You know when you raised the whole issue of this fraud’s fraudulent treatment quite a while ago I was basically pissed off about such an obvious fake. Now I’m angry, very angry, about the the whole thing. My father was diagnosed a few months ago with Colon-rectal cancer. He had to undergo 25 radiation treatments in addition to chemo therapy. My father is 80 years old and the whole regime was very hard on him, to put it mildly. He will be having an operation on the 20th of August and will then be equiped with a bag for the rest of his life. My father is going through hell right know and believe me he went through all ther options including second opinions etc. The idea that my father could have become a victim of someone like Burzynski makes me beyond angry, that dad could have delayed treatment beyond the point when it could hav e helped if he he had swallowed woo like Burzynski’s is personally very upsetting thought.

      The idea that somneone I love could have become a victim of this person makes this sort of thing acutely personal.

      • Pacal, why do you think Dr Burzynski is a fraud? Because Bob says so? His clinic has sucessfully treated my wife, when the Drs that Bob pimps for told her that there is nothing that they can do. Have a look at Hannah.

        Watch video “Team Hannah Blog 01/08/12”, which may move down the list, but is #2 today. We met Hannah and Pete in Dec 2011 at Burzynski Clinic. She is “lucky” enough to have the kind of brain cancer that Dr. Burzynski is allowed to treat. Her UK doctors did all they could and told her that they could do nothing more and she had a few months of seizures and general Hell left to live.

        But, Pete Googled around to see if anyone had ever survived this particular kind of brain cancer. Several had and they were ALL Burzynski patients.

        Hannah is now cancer free!

        Bob is the fraud, not Dr, Burzynski. If you are the same Pacal that has posted before, then I wonder if you are a fraud also. I invite everyone to press control F and reread my Dave&Janet posts and your Pacal posts.

        I ask again, Do you & Bob have so much more medical training than
        Nicholas J. Patronas, MD
        Senior Clinician
        Chief, Section of Neuroradiology

        What is your training, and degrees?

        Dr Patronas testified under oath that Dr. Burzynski had many verified cures of a kind of brain cancer that Bob’s doctors have never cured. When will the coverup and the needless suffering and deaths end?

        “Outsmart Your Cancer: Alternative Non-Toxic Treatments That Work (Second Edition)” is a good first book for people that want a glimpse of the truth.

        Of course Bob will probably edit or refuse to post this. Right Bob?

  63. Jim says:

    I’m a cancer survivor myself (stage 4 non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma) and just finished watching the documentary “Burzynski” on Netflix. A Google search led me to this blog and I read through the comments. I just thought I’d throw my two cents in.

    The documentary is very convincing in its attempts to show that the treatment as administered by Dr. Burzynski is effective. However, a couple things simply don’t make sense.

    The documentary builds a story about the FDA and big drug companies effectively hiding a cancer cure as to not kill their trillion dollar golden goose. This is believable because it makes economics sense, the Drug User Fee Act presents clear conflicts of interest, and frankly no one trusts big business OR the government. That said, I think Bob alluded to this, even it were the case that big drug companies wanted to squash this, the reality is that capitalism will seek any money making opportunity. There is certainly no bigger opportunity than being the only company selling cancer curing drugs even if the survival is only 25% since the other option is roughly 1%. That’s a goldmine. If Burzynski could prove that he is treating patients effectively then it would be more likely that a big drug company would buy him out or a venture capital company would put up the $300 million for the phase 3 trial. That may sound ridiculous to some people, the big venture firms do have they kind of money and they have put more than that into work in single companies. Sticking to pharma, Genentech was funded by a venture capital firm before they ever even had a product, only research. So let’s say no VC wanted to fund him or that he didn’t like their proposals…

    The next point I’d like to make is in regard to Burzynski’s patents. He’s obviously been researching for many decades now and according to:

    the patents mentioned in the documentary were filed in 1985. That would mean that they are off patent today. Generic drug companies have a field day when hit drugs come off patent and make big money from it. If Burzynski’s drugs are as effective as he says and they are off patent then why isn’t anyone jumping on board? In theory, anyone should now be able to do what he does and the fact that he’s charging hundreds of thousands of dollars is certainly enough incentive for others to jump on board.

    Finally, my chemo cost $8,000 a month and when you factor in all the CT scans I had to get then effective price for my treatment was $10,000 per month. I’m not rich by any means and had lost my job and therefore insurance the year before I was diagnosed. Thankfully charity care and government support helped me pay for my life saving treatment, but I would like to point out that Genentech donated a couple months of Rituxan after my doctor’s office pleaded my case to them. My point is that if Burzynski is charging people upfront to see them and even find out if they’re eligible for treatment as this blog claims then something isn’t right. Even the drug companies aren’t that heartless. They probably understood that despite giving me 2 months of drugs for free before government support kicked in that they’re going to make more with me getting 7 more months of treatment than receiving nothing if I were to die over those 2 months, and yes my cancer was that aggressive. I’m lucky to be alive.

  64. Bob says:

    “Generic drug companies have a field day when hit drugs come off patent and make big money from it.” Correct.
    In fact, the antineoplastons that he is pushing are in fact the metabolized products of an orphaned drug. There are two companies manufacturing that drug.

  65. em says:

    I don’t understand why families who have only one option–an outdated pathetic excuse as the only cure the “greatest country in the world” can offer–which won’t make their loved one miserable and might, MIGHT have a positive effect, are vilified and mocked as gullible and uneducated. I would bet that those of you attacking this whole situation and Burzynski are also voting to “limit government” and the “death panels” when it’s the government (bought by lobbyists–heard of them before?) who are paying a lot of money to control this situation. None of us know 100% whether this is the best way, but I think we should all have the option. If it’s not going to kill me, and chemo isn’t going to save me, why not be able to try the other options? We know what the stats are for antiquated treatments and personally, I don’t want to be relying on them when my time comes. Do you

    • Bob says:

      I appreciate your civil tone. A lot of people can’t seem to handle it.

      Who is vilifying them? I don’t think that they are gullible. God, no. They are desperate and vulnerable, which is why we rely on doctors to give them the straight dope when they have a life-threatening crisis. Cancer research is a constantly evolving area, and to say that “chemo” writ large is outdated…well, it’s just inaccurate. It’s evolving and there are new therapies introduced every year.

      I have no interest in conspiracy theories about this. Even if all of your worst fears about big pharma, the government and the FDA were true, it wouldn’t make Burzynski’s treatment any more credible. He hasn’t produced the studies in 30 years. Every argument that you make to me MUST address that point.

      You are building in a lot of assumptions: 1) “Chemo isn’t going to save me.” Depending on the stage and the treatment and the individual, it might. It might save you, it might prolong your life, and it might give you a better standard of living while you are still alive. These drugs get approved when they are shown to do these things. 2) Alternative treatments are not going to kill you. Well, they might, if you forgo the best-tested, peer-reviewed therapies available in favor of something that has not been proved to work. You might well shorten your life. When it comes to Burzynski, if you look at the narratives by his patients and his patients’ parents, they are constantly fighting off dangerously wildly varying sodium levels. This is chemotherapy. Packaging it as “natural” and “not chemo” is in my opinion unethical. Letting patients proceed under that impression that they are non-toxic treatments is utterly disingenuous.

      I want these patients to live great lives, long lives, and improved lives. At that level, we can all agree that’s what we want. We differ over how we are going to get there, I think.


    • Pacal says:

      There are options and then they are options. Snake oil and Threaputic touch are options so are a million other alternative remidies. However one thing that characterizes these alternatives is that they are unproven. Dr. Burzynski has had 30 years to “test” his treatment and he has utterly failed to produce the findings. His foundation lists expenses but no income. It looks like a scam.

      Please avoid the mindreading about what we support.

      As for if we should have the option. I have no problem with people doing whatever the hell they want on their own dime. However that doesn’t prevent me from being outraged by cold calculated attempts to take advantage of people’s desperation by offering them bogus / aternative treatments. Nor should it prevent me from attacking such a person as a threat to other people.

      My father was recently diagnosed with colon cancer and he had 5 weeks of chemo and radiation treatments followed by surgery. He will have to have a bag for the rest of his life. I am grateful that he did not fall into the hands of a alternative quack who would have milked my father and mother for their savings and left them no better off.

      People like Dr. Burzynski are leeches on people’s misery.

  66. […] in the press begging for money to see Burzynski. When I did, I found that with a single exception, every damned patient I could find in the LexisNexis Academic database who had appeared in the press begging for money to […]

  67. […] picture of his house, the unmistakable threat: “We know where you live.” This was when I first wrote about Burzynski, I […]

  68. Dr. Jan Nigrin says:

    Dear Bob,
    you dig all failures about the antineoplastons that Dr. Burzynski is offering to people suffering from cancer. Until you get cancer ourself and fail one proven chemo by conventional cancer institute and another radiation therapy at the same conventional institute you have hardly right to call Dr Burzynski a piss pedler. I was at his clinic and so there patients from the whole world who were dying failures of the proven and pear reviewed conventional treatments. The Burzynski clinik was their last hope, but sometimes there time was already wasted on a few previous proven conventional treatments. I was one of them. By the time I visited the Burzynski clinik I lost 25 pounds, my heamoglobin was was just above a level requiring blood transfusion and Icould hardly keep my eys open. They prescribed for my multicentric plasmacytoma Bortezemid treatment with dexamethazone like mine conventional oncologist supplemented with Burzynski neoplastons (yours piss treatment). The conventional Bortezomid treatment is supposed to show some positive results, if it turns to be effective, after 3 or more weaks. In my case I saw drastic drop of excreating fron 7 grams of protene per day in my urine to 1.5 gr per day right after the first week. To give you idea of the cost of treatments. One weak of the Bortezomid plus dexametazone costs about $ 10,000.00 while the neoplastons cost for a weak is about $700.00. My cancer is not curable. I have to go one month on and one month off as long as the Bortezemid treatment remains effective against my cancer. Daily I am still using the antineoplastons costng me about $ 70.00 per day since I reduced its dosage. I belive the antineoplastons have minimized sideeffects of the Bortezomid treatment that are usually quite bad. I am thakful to Dr Burzynski for his antineoplastons your deregatory piss treatment.
    Yours Jan
    PS. At the clinic in Houston I saw pictures and letters from many young people who were supposed to die according current evidence based oncology 10-15 years ago because of their untreatable brain cancers. Before you start scaring people away from their last chance for life please go and contact those young people or even now their children, because many of them are already married.

  69. Sher Brook says:

    Why should terminal patients, who according to orthodox medicine will die, be prevented from accessing non-orthodox therapies through their medical doctors? In particular, if a patient understands that the treatment has not been approved by the FDA and that the risks and benefits cannot be fully identified or quantified, and nonetheless gives his or her informed consent to participate in the research, why should he or she be prevented from making that choice?

    FDA has never stopped tobacco companies from selling cigarettes and
    People are still able to buy cigarettes even if we all know they cause cancer….
    WHY??? because, as far as I know and hope, we still live in a free society…

    • Bob says:

      Why? When there is no evidence that it works and there is substantial evidence that the doctor is gaming the system for personal gain, taking tons of money with offering no possibility of benefit? Why? Also, I have seen how badly they read MRIs at the Clinic. Look at, and you will see the not imaginary costs of doing business with this quack.


      On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Skeptical Humanities

  70. Sher Brook says:

    You miss the point my dear Bob.

    The question is about letting people chose the treatment they want.

    Remember when Susan Somers announced she had Breast Cancer and went for alternative cancer treatments instead of conventional medecine ?

    Is Susan Somers still alive ??? YES…even if the American Cancer Society discredited her and the Wiley Protocol which has been labelled as “scientifically unproven.

    Dear Bob, do you believe in Homeopathy or is Homeopathy just another way for “gaming the system for personal gain” ???

  71. Bob says:

    Yes. She had a lumpectomy to remove it and then she had radiotherapy. Conventional treatments. Also she took the Wiley Protocol. In doing so, she suppressed her immune system, contracted an invasive fungal infection (something so rare in someone without AIDS that her doctors thought the cancer had simply come back), and nearly freaking killed herself. I have no doubt that she will significantly shorten her own life. In fact, she told them that she as not on hormones, so they ruled out a suppressed immune system (that would make her susceptible to fungal infection), and made the reasonable diagnosis that her cancer had returned. After the fact, she was so pissed off when doctors suggested that her bioidentical hormones were….exactly the same as other hormones, that she blamed THEM. She’s a nutloaf and lucky to have not killed herself so far.

    Homeopathy is demonstrably ridiculous. It’s a series of dilutions. Say you have insomnia. You take 1:100 solution of caffeine, tap it magically, then dilute that to 1:100 in water, tap that, dilute it to 1:100 AGAIN….and this is an exponential process, and once you pass 1 part per 6.02*(10^23) dilution (1/Avagadro’s number), you can’t say that there is anything OTHER than water in the container. Most dilutions are one molecule per VOLUME OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM. So, no. Homeopathy is absolutely, utterly ridiculous. In order for homeopathy to work, everything we know about chemistry, physics and pharmacology (including the use of antineoplastons and other chemotherapies) would have to be wrong. Really. You can’t believe in ANP and homeopathy and still think that you make sense.

    Of course, 70% or more of ailments resolve themselves without a doctor, so people chalk up successes to homeopathy all the time when they really should be thanking Darwinian selection.

  72. Bob says:

    And I believe that informed consent is something that patients should have. To suggest that ANP is any more effective than giving a tumor a stern talking to is dishonest and denies patients an informed choice.

  73. Sher Brook says:

    Dear Bob,

    Go tell Queen Elizabeth II and Dr.Peter Fisher, her personal physician since 2001 that Homeopathy is ridiculous…

    Have a good day Bob and Freedom of choice is the foundation of our society.
    Like I said to you earlier, we all know that cigarette causes Cancer but our society allows anyone to buy them anyway.

    • Bob says:

      Happy to tell them that. Do you have her email? Do you think it is true because the Queen uses it? That’s idiotic, perhaps the worst logic anyone has ever used on my site. Ever. I’m not all surprised she has a homeopath. The Price of Wales is a notorious alt med sucker.

      I used to do a demonstration where I would take a hundred homeopathic sleeping pills in front of my class. In three consecutive classes. They are placebo. Grow up. And you completely dismiss informed choice. If you know that ANP doesn’t work and that in 35 years B’s never even specified a target of action for his chemotherapy, and you still want to go there, I’m not going to stop you. If you are willing to be colossally ripped off…that’s your problem. But you are also bankrupting your heirs.


      • Sher Brook says:

        Are you that concerned about people spending and going bankrupt trying alternative Cancer treatments ?
        Honestly, as long as I remember, everybody I knew who were diagnosed with Cancer in my family, relatives and friends, went for Chemotherapy and many got radiation. They all suffered a lot from those treatments and THEY ALL DEAD TODAY.
        Some managed to live 5 or 6 years after being diagnosed but they all dead today. Here are their names. My Grand father, Frank G, my Dad, Remi T. my aunts Therese D, Darcina D, Helene H., Madeleine T. Monique T. my uncles Gerard G, Gaston T.,Jean-Paul T. Clement T. My Godfather Roland M. my niece Amelie L (19 yo), my neighbours,Gerard Chapdelaine, Simon Cote, Rita Belanger, my friends, Agathe Lacroix, Dave Lamont (33 yo), Ivan Scolli, (55 yo), plus many more co-workers, friends of friends, Shop owners, barbers, etc…who I personnally met and got to know. NONE of them survived Cancer completely… they lived in pain and fear, went thru many repetitive treatments..and their quality of life was greatly reduced to being OK to be alive for a few more years. Imagine the Zilllions of dollars that have been raised over the last 40 years to fight Cancer…it’s just a big $$$ BUSINESS and I firmly believe that many who claim being Survivors NEVER HAD CANCER IN THE FIRST PLACE. Thousands of people in North America are being misdiagnosed every year and found out (many after their breast have been removed) they never had Cancer in the first place………. I guess we can call them Survivors. YEAH RIGHT !!!
        Good Night Bob

  74. […] not the way science is supposed to be done, and his record, as demonstrated by the public record, appears dismal. Barring the publication of truly convincing clinical trial evidence by more sources than just […]

  75. Narutolost says:

    Bob you seem to be a good guy, so please stop wasting your time arguing with people who refuse to accept your thought process. Dont even read the illformed walls of text. You dont have to reply to every idiot who posts, youll have no time! Anyone rationale can already judge the merits of your points, anyone else is not reasonable so it’s pointless,

  76. […] has picked up this story. Skeptical Humanities adds a few more […]

  77. […] “That just isn’t good enough,” Janet chimes in. At 17:20, David begins talking about the exchange that he had at the website above, and David reveals a very sad rationalization trap. This is an illustration of the thought process […]

  78. […] Stanislaw Burzynski’s public record ( […]

  79. […] Stanislaw Burzynski’s public record ( […]

  80. […] search for all of the patients that I could find. Of those patients I could find an outcome for, every patient who appeared in the international press, usually begging for money, with a single exception was […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: