Happy New Year!

Is Marc Stephens Really A Representative Of Burzynski?

A few days ago jli blogged about a movie that claims to prove the efficacy of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s “antineoplastons” as a cancer cure.

After writing a post on Dr Stanislaw Burzynski, Andy Lewis of the Quackometer received legal threats from someone by the name of Marc Stephens, who claims to represent Burzynski.

This is not the first time this person threatens bloggers in this way. Peter Bowditch of Ratbags.com is another recent example.

The style of his emails does sound a bit lawyerish, but then again – not really.

What we do know is that Marc Stephens is a marketing representative for a Burzynski supporter group – and the Burzynski Clinic does have a link on their website to this group.

But like everyone else, Marc Stephens has a past.

Marc Stephens was heard of as early as March 2011 on Yahoo Answers, a question and answer forum where people can ask and answer questions on a large variety of topics. One of those sections revolves around cancer. There is also one that revolves around alternative medicine. In both of these sections questions on Burzynski appear from time to time and in one of them the poster “lo_mcg” gave a perfectly reasonable answer. Just below the answer there is a “comments button”. If you press that button you will see how the “Burzynski representative to be” behaved. The first thing he did was to reveal an email address which he thought belonged to lo_mcg. We do not know if he actually wrote an email to this unfortunate person. The insults he put forward in public were bad enough, but it didn’t stop there.

He also sent emails to lo_mcg, expecting that she would be the only one to see them. This email exchange took place between March 28 March and April 11. All the emails came through YA’s messaging system , and he was unable to continue his harassment because Yahoo deleted his account. Lo_mcg has offered those emails to the public, and we feel that people should know about Marc Stephens’s recent past. So here is the full email exchange, including the two replies lo_mcg wrote.

From: MAS

Subject: Dr. Burzynski

Message: You see I actually do research : ) Your in SCHOOL? You do absolutely NO RESEARCH before answering questions?

Dorothy Tuan Lo <— “Lo”_mcg..??
Email: DTUANLO@mail.mcg.edu <—-Lo_”mcg”?
Medical College of Georgia
706-721-0272

Is it you? : ) We are real people and you should be ashamed of yourself trying to defame a group of people that you know absolutely nothing about. How about visiting the website at www.burzynskipatientgroup.org and do some research.

View the MEDICAL RECORDS of the patients on the website. I am not politically correct..so you will not receive a sugar coated response from me. You are disrespectful and ignorant. DO THE RESEARCH. How about talking to the little kids that had brain cancer. How about looking at the news that followed them from initial diagnosis to being CANCER FREE.

I demand an apology from you on this matter. As well as reposting your answer after you do your research. The people you claim are DEAD are ALIVE and that is called DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER. The patients of Dr. Burzynski are in the public eye as well as your comment about them, and you could be held liable for your “MEDICAL ADVISE”, and defamation of character. I recorded the screen with your comment as well as conducted research to, if necessary, file a legal suit if your comment is not corrected immediately. These people have families and you are causing great emotional distress to them by your uneducated comments and medical advise. Thank you. Marc Stephens

Reply from lo_mcg:

Your ‘research’ is rather fanciful; no that’s not me. Have you been harassing that unfortunate person with emails and threats?

I left school 42 years ago; never been to med school; never been to Georgia – in fact never been to the US. I’m someone who was desperate to avoid harsh treatments when diagnosed with advanced cancer, and researched all possible options.

I have given no ‘medical advise (sic)’, nor would I ever.I have not ‘defamed’ anybody; in fact the only person I refer to by name is Dr Burzynski.

I have made no comments about any patients of Dr Burzynski. Please reread my answer carefully. The only reference I make to any patients of Dr B is contained within a quote, clearly credited and clearly enclosed in quotation marks.

The only ‘advise’ (sic) I gave was to ‘Be wary of unsubstantiated testimonials about miracle cancer cures. You have no way of knowing whether the person ever had cancer in the first place, much less has been cured’, advice I frequently give in replies on YA and will continue to give to people seeking internet advice on cancer treatment – ANY cancer treatment.

If you want clues for further ‘research’, my YA username is in fact a mixture of letters from my own name and that of my paternal grandmother. And I live in a country that is not the US 

From: MAS

Subject: Re: Dr. Burzynski

Message: “His ”antineoplastons” -the substances he has isolated from human urine which he claims cure cancer – have never been shown to have any effect on cancer”.. It doesn’t matter what country your in unless your on Mars..you can be sued for Defamation of Character, dissemination of false information, and negligence if you give medical advice. Dr. Burzynski has a patent in multiple countries for Antineoplastons and that is your quote above.

If you claim to be educated you should know you can not patent a drug that does not work, or is illegal. If you actually did do research you would know the FDA and the US Government are trying to steal the patent to antineoplaston. In addition, Antineoplaston is being introduced to PHASE III clinical trials? Maybe you should do more research on the matter because you are giving FALSE information. You should also speak with the patients and the kids that were treated successfully visit www.burzynskipatientgroup.org. Also, you can watch the NEWS stories on the website. Be responsible and do the research or I will pursue.

Feel free to contact me anytime 562-843-9398 or mastephens1@gmail.com. Many people are unaware that Dr. Burzynski patients are treated and are doing great. Don’t fall pray to propaganda. There is also a movie out (documentary) about Dr. Burzynski which has won numerous awards..I suggest you watch it. Thursday March 31 I am very serious. Thank you Marc Stephens. fyi..Dont think your IP is not tracked. Good night.

***

From: MAS

Subject: Burzynski

Message: You are afraid of facing the truth. If you are as smart as you think watch the documentary.

The type of person you are…you would think all the lawyers, police, and patients were lying in court when they testified in favor of Burzynski.

Then Burzynski won ALL multiple cases against him filed by the Government. But I thought his treatment does not work. The JURY even started testifying and supporting Burzynski. You need to do more research.

Why are you afraid to watch the documentary??? COMMENT on the documentary. I would think that a person that gives advise on cancer would look into current and relevant information. You claim you had cancer. POST your medical records like Burzynski Patients are doing on their website. You are CLEARLY a fraud..as well as the rest of the people on your page.. which is probably you with multiple accounts. I dont believe you… so can you prove that Burzynski is a fraud. I thought you were here to help innocent people like me who want the truth about cancer cures.

THE BURZYNSKI DOCUMENTARY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S81PXHwjMAQ&feature=channel_video_title

***

From: MAS

Subject: Burzynski

Message: For someone that is 58 yrs old who supposedly had breast cancer, and suffer from Diabetes type 2 and Lymphoedema you sure are hard headed and have NO RESPECT for cancer patients. Is that how they raise people in London-UK? Are you afraid to watch these videos:

1. Jessica Ressel Interview Brain Cancer Cured by Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski with NO Chemo or Radiation Therapy.

Jessica followed by media at 11 yrs old http://www.burzynskipatientgroup.org/news/jessica-ressel-brain-cancer

Jessica at 24 yrs old http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwTonGa0kCg&feature=player_embedded

2. Kelsey Hill Interview Lung & Liver Cancer Cured by Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski with NO Chemo or Radiation Therapy..6 month old baby.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0tTt1GO9RU&feature=player_embedded

3. Jodie Gold Fenton Interview Brain Cancer Cured by Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski with NO Chemo or Radiation Therapy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNW5afr6vmM&feature=player_embedded

4. Lt. Col. James Treadwell Brain Cancer Cured by Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski with NO Chemo or Radiation Therapy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tai7oMXw-nY&feature=player_embedded

***

Reply from lo_mcg:

Becoming something of an obsession with you, aren’t I?

All the information you believe you have artfully gleaned is freely available from my YA answers – except  that I was either raised in or live in London, which I wasn’t and don’t.

Please know that I am a person of principle and can’t be frightened or bullied into saying something I do not believe to be true.

If you wish to change my mind about something on which I have formed an opinion, harassment and personal insults are not the way to do it. Rational argument is.

If you read my posts about Burzynski carefully, and are honest, you will see that nowhere have I called anyone a liar or a fraud.

But replication is the proof that something is effective; and Dr B’s results have not been successfully replicated, and so my position remains the same. And yes, I have watched some of the videos you link to.

In your search though my YA contributions, you can’t fail to have noticed that I am actually unfailingly respectful of cancer patients in my answers. If you don’t feel you have seen enough, I will happily add you as a ‘contact’, which means my Q&A will be visible to you. That way you won’t have to waste any more time googling.

Please note that even if I wanted to (which I don’t), I could not now remove my answer

And be aware that I simply don’t care whether you believe what I say or not. I’m adult and secure enough not to spend time fretting about other people’s opinions of me.

I suggest you move on now

From: MAS

Subject: Re: Burzynski

Message: “If you read my posts about Burzynski carefully, and are honest, you will see that nowhere have I called anyone a liar or a fraud.”

Your context insinuates that Burzynski is a fraud and a Liar in the following statements of yours..which is defamation of character.

“Burzynski claims to cure cancer with extracts from human urine. THERE SHOULDN’T REALLY BE ANY NEED TO SAY MORE, but here goes.”

“His ”antineoplastons” -the substances he has isolated from human urine which he claims cure cancer – have NEVER been shown to have any effect on cancer…” Are you sure “NEVER”..?

This is called Defamation – LIBAL which means defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures. UK law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements alleged to defame a “named or identifiable individual” or individuals in a manner that causes them loss in their trade or profession, or “causes a reasonable person to think worse of them”.

You are on Yahoo giving medical advice to THIRD PARTIES which people take your answers as TRUTH. Your statements are 100% incorrect which medical records can prove in court that patients are being cured with Antineoplastons. Its also FDA approved for clinical trials and considered NON TOXIC. So your “NEVER” statement qualifies as defamation. Opinions also fall under defamation..your being NEGLIGENT. yahoo is a PUBLIC forum and BURZYNSKI is a PUBLIC FIGURE. Be smart.

***

From: MAS

Subject: Re: Burzynski

Message: I am just giving you FACTS about your statements. These are not threats nor do I have to bully someone to change their mind or OPINION. I am just letting you know that OPINIONS and false information whether on purpose or being negligent can land you in court. Because you are on Yahoo answering medical questions since 2007 you are looked at as an expert to the average person. There are also other Members telling people to listen to you because you know what your talking about. I have that as well.

I am trying to show you the TRUTH about Burzynski but you seem to be running away. Its unreal being that you claim to have suffered the side effects of chemo, radiation, and surgery. I do respect you, but you have to understand that what you put on PUBLIC forums you are liable for. Dr. Burzynski is a public figure and I can give you numerous cases he filed in regards to this type of action. In addition, he won numerous cases against the government. You really need to stop with your opinion when it comes to medical advice on public forums..you also have no disclaimers.

Call the Burzynski clinic and ask for current statistics of their patients..its avail. Dont you think they would be out of business and in jail providing FAKE statistics for over 30 years?

Wouldn’t you be upset if I told the world you NEVER had breast cancer and you are a fake? All the pain you went through and for someone to make you look like a fool in public..you would be hurt. Feel better.

***

From: MAS

Subject: Burzynski

Message: I see you just dont quit. I was going to take it easy on you. I do investigations for a living. How about you do some more current reading and not from old *** government propaganda newspapers and BLOGS.

You are stubborn which is why god gave you so much pain in your life. God hate ugly as they say. This is also why your comments are filled with ignorance, hate, and lies. you work for the devil now.. Wake up miss cancer patient of the decade. You probably LIED about cancer as well..you need attention.

In the end I will be laughing at all of you psychos. Go drink a glass of chemo..on the rocks. You are psycho but at least you have an excuse. Radiation and chemo turned you out..you no longer think with logic.

I already know your name and address. So good luck if a suit is at your front door. You talk too much thats how I found you. Lol. Be a good girl..hope you dont have pain in your thighs anytime soon..your already a pain in the ***… Lol.

Soon I will contact the patients and the clinic and provide them with your silly statement of “antineoplastons NEVER being effective”..when his drug is CLEARED for FDA phase 3 clinical trials. This trial will test the effectiveness between Radiation therapy and antineoplaston therapy on brain cancer. So you may want to retract your statement. : ) When you stop being childish and ignorant I will do the same. Follow your own medical advice and stop eating junk and exercise to help with your type 2 diabetes. Take care

***

From: MAS

Subject: Burzynski

Message: Hey Lo_mein… Im starting to think Bruce LI, Dave and busted, Gary No, Rhianna does herself, and Tink who cant Think are ALL of your split personalities with its own Yahoo account..Lol! How can so many people be so ignorant..?

Can you all answer this question. Is Antineoplastons approved for Phase 3 clinical trials by the FDA? Yes or No….

***

From: MAS

Subject: Burzynski

Message: Lo_Mein. Can you please answer this since you are the expert on cancer here on Yahoo Answers. Is Antineoplastons approved by the FDA to commence Phase 3 clinical trials?

Phase 1 is it Toxic to humans? NO.
Phase 2 shows positive results? YES.
Phase 3 Effective and ready for Marketability?

***

From: MAS

Subject: Burzynski

Message: Just in case you didn’t read Yahoos Terms of Service.

You agree to not use the Yahoo! Services to:

upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, tortious, AND DEFAMATORY;

intentionally or unintentionally violate any applicable local, state, national or international law;

You acknowledge, consent and agree that Yahoo! may access, preserve and disclose your account information and Content if required to do so by law or in a good faith belief that such access preservation or disclosure is reasonably necessary to: (i) comply with legal process;

You agree to indemnify and hold Yahoo! and its subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, agents, employees, partners and licensors harmless from any claim or demand, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, made by any third party due to or arising out of Content you submit, post, transmit, modify or otherwise make available through the Yahoo! Services;

SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN WARRANTIES OR THE LIMITATION OR EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY FOR INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES. ACCORDINGLY, SOME OF THE ABOVE LIMITATIONS OF SECTIONS 19 AND 20 MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.

I knew you would be searching for me so I answered the Spurs to let you know your acting like a COWBOY..slang for a Reckless person who ignores potential risks. Pretty smart huh?

You can offer to amend your statement..before I submit to yahoo. NEVER is a bad word when Phase 3 is FDA approved to commence.

***

Threats like this: “Thursday March 31 I am very serious.” can be frighthening, but as lo_mcg mentions:” March 31st came and went 8 months ago”

We would like to express our support to Andy Lewis, lo_mcg, Peter Bowditch and everyone else who has refused to yield to this sort of behaviour.

Update:

UPDATED 27.11.11:
The connection between Marc Stephens and The Burzynski Clinic appears to have been confirmed: 17 year old blogger Rhys Morgan received a legal threat similar to that of others, and in the process he contacted the Burzynsci Clinic for confirmation of this connection. The reply came from Marc Stephens:

… I represent Dr. Burzynski, the Burzynski Clinic, and the Burzynski Research Institute. I’ve attached Azad Rastegar, and Renee Trimble from the Burzynski Clinic for your confirmation.

This means that all the ridiculous legal threats and all the contempt for people with cancer expressed by Marc Stepehens is expressed on behalf of Burzynski.

UPDATED 30.11.11:

The Burzynski Clinic issued a press release regarding the recent internet activity.

See also:

Summary of information on Burzynski by Josephine Jones.

UPDATED 7.12.11
A blogging lawyer is looking into the legal aspects of Marc Stephens’s threats. And he has been in contact with him.
UPDATED 21.12.11
There has been further contact between MAS and Popehat.

Burzynski The Movie: Does It Prove The Efficacy of Antineoplastons Against Cancer?

Stanislaw Burzynski treats cancer patients at a private clinic using what he terms “antineoplastons”: mixtures of peptides, amino acids, and other simple organic substances that are said to promote the body’s natural defenses against cancer. He has published his own studies, but nobody has been able to reproduce the clinical results he claims to have achieved. Recently a movie was released that allegedly shows irrefutable proof that his therapy works as a cure for cancer and that the rest of the medical establishment is conspiring against him.

In this post we will not concern ourselves with conspiracy talk: all we are interested in is to review the evidence presented in the movie (click here).

Right at the opening it says:

“This is the story of a medical doctor and PhD biochemist who has discovered the genetic mechanism that can cure most human cancers. The opening 30 minutes of this film is designed to thoroughly establish this fact — so the viewer can fully appreciate the events that follow it.”

This is followed by an excerpt from a congress hearing; an interview with a practitioner of alternative medicine and a description of the idea of antineoplastons.

The next part of the movie consists of three testimonials, including documentation. It is those testimonials that are intended to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that antineoplastons are effective as cancer treatment. Well – if it works we really want to know about it, so let’s take a look at the “anecdotal evidence”.

TESTIMONIAL 1:

The transcript is here and the “Diagnosis & recovery documents” can be found here.
The first patient whose case is presented as evidence is a female diagnosed with an anaplastic astrocytoma. We are told that a CT-scan revealed a mass in the brain measuring approximately 2 cm. In the movie we are shown a glimpse at the MRI-report and a pathology report telling us that the mass was an anaplastic astrocytoma. It is right here that the documentation shown in the movie becomes problematic. Here is the conclusion of the MRI-report:

The yellow marking is what the people behind the Burzynski movie want you to focus on. But the next sentence is very important too, because it tells us that the lesion could also be a lymphoma or an inflammatory process. This is important because primary treatment of neoplasms like astrocytoma is surgery. Lymphomas are treated with chemotherapy and inflammatory conditions are treated by other means depending on the nature of the inflammation. So in order to know whether such a patient should be treated primarily with surgery, chemotherapy or something else, a biopsy is needed. And a biopsy was taken in this case: it was a core biopsy, measuring 1 cm in length and a diameter of 1-2 mm. The following is not shown in the movie, but it is very important:

It tells us that the diagnosis was given by the pathologist during the operation. A frozen section analysis provides information to be used in deciding whether or not to proceed with surgery. Had the diagnosis been lymphoma, the decision would have been a no. This diagnosis establishes a reason to proceed with the surgical procedure. So we are right in asking ourselves if she did have further tumour tissue removed. At the start of the testimonial we were told that the astrocytoma was inoperable. Well – it was accessible for biopsy, so how then could it have been inaccessible to surgery? And this is what we are shown of Burzynski’s monitoring of the tumour size by MRI, starting before the antineoplaston treatment:

The lesion measured originally about 2 cm, but right before antineoplastons treatment, it appears to have been reduced in size to 0,5 cm. This is highly suggestive of something having happened after the biopsy, and surgery makes sense. An inflammatory reaction is a normal part of the healing process following surgery. It would accordingly be expected to find an inflammatory reaction at the site of surgery. Remember what it said about other possibilities than in the original scan:

So based on what we are told and what we can deduce from the documentation, there are two possibilities:
1) A 2 cm anaplastic astrocytoma was biopsied. Without further intervention it shrunk to 0,5 cm.
Antineoplastons made the rest go away; this is in fact what the movie claims.
2) A 2 cm anaplastic astrocytoma was biopsied and then surgically removed. The subsequent inflammation
resolved on its own.

TESTIMONIAL 2:

Here is the transcript and here are the “Diagnosis & recovery documents”.
The second patient is a female who at age 11 was diagnosed with a brain stem lesion. We are told that the MRI showed a diffuse brain stem glioma. and then we are shown an MRI-scan which shows a relatively small tumor in the brain stem (shown yellow).

None of us on the blog are neuroradiologists, so we have to consult textbooks to figure out what a diffuse brain stem glioma looks like. There’ one here. It has a chapter on brain stem gliomas, and on page 260 section 4.5.2.4 it says the following about the diagnosis of diffuse gliomas:

“….are poorly defined and as a rule occupy more than 50% of the axial brainstem diameter”.

Judge for yourself if you think the yellow marked lesion well defined or poorly defined. But it is not even close to occupying 50% of the diameter, so it is not a typical diffuse brain stem glioma, judging by the MRI. Perhaps we can find the explanation in the MRI-report. We must assume that the MRI-scan was examined by a neuroradiologist, who knows when something that doesn’t look like the textbook description of a diffuse brain stem glioma still is a diffuse brain stem glioma. Here’s what it says in the MRI-report:

No mentioning of a diffuse brain stem glioma here. It is also questionable how reliable the MRI-diagnosis of a brain stem glioma really is. In this study the researchers looked into what was seen in biopsies from 46 lesions diagnosed as gliomas on MRI. Only in 28 of the cases were the glioma diagnosis correct. In 6 of the cases the lesions were benign (non-cancerous).

Another interesting observation can be made in the chart showing changes in the size of the lesion during Burzynski’s treatment:

Between the MRI-diagnosis and the first MRI-scan at Burzynski’s clinic, just before the start of the antineoplaston therapy, the size has diminished from approximately 2 cm to 1 cm. This suggests that either something has happened which we are not told about, or this is something that has decreased to half the size all by itself. This casts serious doubts on whether the subsequent antineoplaston therapy actually did anything in this case.

So, based on what we are told and what we can deduce from the documentation, there are three possibilities:
1) A diffuse brain stem glioma which did not look like a textbook example of a diffuse brain stem glioma on MRI and which was not biopsied, diminished to half its original size on its own and then Antineoplastons made the rest go away.
2) The lesion was a benign non-cancerous condition that resolved by itself.
3) The lesion was treated successfully by conventional treatment.

TESTIMONIAL 3:

The transcript is here, the “Diagnosis & recovery documents” are here and here.
We are told that a 6 months old baby is diagnosed with a base ball sized tumor in her abdomen. “It is in her kidney and everywhere…. in her liver and her lungs…” The next thing that happens is surgery, where the abdominal mass is removed.

We are presented with parts of a pathology report where we can see that “The kidney is not involved” and the final microscpic diagnosis ends with “See comment”. This tells us two things:

1) The parents are wrong when they say that the tumor was in the kidney by the time of diagnosis.
2) The diagnosis wasn’t all that clear cut. “See comment” is something pathologists add to the final microscopic diagnosis, when the mere diagnosis can’t stand on its own. For instance, if not all criteria for making the diagnosis are present, there might be uncertainty as to how the tumour should be classified. Here is what it says in the comment:

Basically, this means that the case has been discussed, and weighing all things, they classified the tumour as an arenocortical carcinoma (a distinct type of adrenal cancer). We are unable to assess the reason for this uncertainty, because we are not shown the relevant part of the pathology report containing the microscopic description. This is typically where criteria present for making the diagnosis are mentioned, and any uncertainty in the interpretation is discussed.

The microscopy slides were also reviewed at another institution (MD Anderson Cancer Center). And again their diagnosis is “Adrenal neoplasm consistent with adrenal cortical carcinoma (See comment).” Here are those comments:

Basically this confirms that there is uncertainty of the cancer diagnosis, and they intend to use immunohistochemistry to help in deciding if this diagnosis is correct. We are not shown the content of the supplemental report, but we are shown an indication that such a report was indeed issued. The above report was signed out 9/26/2005 1:45 PM. Then there is this:

Something was signed out 9/29/2005 which has not been cleared or approved by the FDA. It can only be the immunohistochemistry, because the rest consisted merely of looking at microscopy slides from the original pathology lab.
So what’s the fuss all about? Well, there is one very important differential diagnosis that has to be taken into account: adrenal cortical adenoma, which is the benign non-cancerous counterpart of an adrenal cortical carcinoma. In the WHO publication on classification of tumors in the endocrine organs there are no less than three scoring systems and they mention that there are more such systems. A scoring system typically lists a set of characteristics, and the more of these characteristics are present in the tumour, the higher the score. If the score is high enough, the tumor is classified as a carcinoma (cancer), and if it is lower, the tumor is classified as an adenoma. The snippets of the pathology reports presented do not allow us to assess how this tumor scored in any of the classification systems. But the above certainly does indicate that it is in the grey area.

Then we are shown a preliminary radiology report where it says that there are progressing lung metastases:

A preliminary report is just what it sounds like: a first impression, which may be interpreted in a different way in the final report. We will never know what it says in the final report, because it is not shown to us.

So what happens after the parents decide to go for the antineoplaston therapy? Well – According to the movie:

“By this time, Kelseys cancer had also spread to the liver”.

This means the parents were incorrect when at the beginning of the testimonial they said the cancer was already in the liver by the time of diagnosis. The first CT-scan demonstrating a small liver lesion at Burzynskis dates 22-2-2006, which is almost 6 months after the operation.

The lesion in the liver is regular with “low attenuation”. It is not diagnostic of a liver metastasis (although it is a possibility). According to the movie, no attempts have been made to verify if this is a metastasis or something else.

So what do we have here:
1) The parents’s information on how widespread the tumour was known to be at the beginning, is demonstrably unreliable.
2) There is uncertainty as to whether the tumour really was cancer.
3) The tumour was successfully removed by surgery.
4) Liver and lung lesions of unknown nature decreased in size as time passed.

With the incomplete and insufficient information we have, it is impossible to accept this testimonial as evidence that antineoplastons cured this baby of metastatic adrenal cortical carcinoma. So what are we to think about the opening statement in the movie:

The opening 30 minutes of this film is designed to thoroughly establish this fact—so the viewer can fully appreciate the events that follow it.”

Conclusion

There is no evidence that the cancer of any of the patients presented in the movie was cured or even improved with antineoplaston therapy, and based on Burzynski’s “evidence” it seems only fair that some are trying to put him out of business.

Related posts:
Stanislaw Burzynski: bad medicine, a bad movie and bad PR 
Dr. Burzynski and the cult of personality of the “brave maverick cancer doctor”
What dr. Stanislaw Burzynski doesn’t want you to know about antineoplastons
Hope or False Hope

Health Ranger Mike Adams And The Death of Steve Jobs

As was to be expected, it didn’t take Mike Adams long to inform the world of the cause of Steve Job’s death. It was of course, as it always is, conventional cancer treatments – chemotherapy and radiation in particular – and not cancer, for in Mike Adams’s world of miracles that never happen, there is no such thing as dying from cancer.

Adams claims the various chemotherapy and radiation treatments Jobs underwent, both in the USA and abroad, brought about his death, implying that had he not done this, he would most certainly have been alive and healthy to this day. Curiously though, what Adams fails to mention is that Jobs, after he was first diagnosed with a rare form of pancreatic cancer, decided to forgo conventional treatment and tried to cure his cancer with an alternative food regime. Apparently the results were dissappointing, for after about nine months of alternative therapy he had his tumour surgically removed. Outlook after surgery can be quite good, provided the tumour is removed before it has had a chance to spread to other organs.

We don’t know whether the delay in standard treatment caused the cancer to spread; it may have, but then again, it may not have. What we do know is that Jobs survived for almost eight years after his diagnosis, which, to all intents and purposes, is impressive when it comes to pancreatic cancer, and that he did this with the help of standard cancer treatments.

Steve Jobs died on Wednesday, October 5 2011, at the age of 56

This was typed on an Apple MacBook – the best computer I ever had.

Our Problem with Alternative Cancer Treatments

The purpose of this blog is to warn against alternative medicine, alternative medicine for cancer in particular. With alternative medicine we mean medical treatments which are used instead of standard therapy and for which there is no reliable indication of any efficacy.

We believe alternative treatments are dangerous for a number of reasons. The main danger is that they give patients a false sense of security, causing them to lose time and thus robbing them from the chance to benefit from standard therapy, often with devastating results. Alternative therapies can also have dangerous, even life-threatening side effects. Many people will say that this can be said of surgery, radiation and chemotherapy as well. That is true, but these treatments have also shown to be effective. Most side-effects can be overcome and will diminish with time. In medicine, there is no gain without pain and the wisdom of the doctors lies in balancing the pain and the gain. With alternative cancer therapies, there is never any gain and the patient invariably loses all.

Some people will say that standard medicine is by no means perfect either. It is also often suggested that standard medicine has not been able to improve cancer survival rates compared to, let’s say, fifty years ago, so why not just turn to alternative treatments instead? The answer is simple: cancer survival rates have improved, as you can see here, and in spite of all its shortcomings and imperfections, standard medicine is still the best we have when it comes to treating cancer.

No Blogging For The Time Being…

Due to personal circumstances I won’t be posting on this blog for the time being.

I thank you all for your input and wish you all the very best & hope to see you again soon.

Love,
Beatis

Why It Is Morally Wrong To Believe Something Without Good Evidence: Arthur Schafer on The Ethics of Belief

Some time ago we blogged about the “ethics of belief”, in which we discussed the question whether a person’s sincere belief can exonerate him when something goes wrong due to the consequences of his belief.

In October 2010, Professor Arthur Schafer, Director of the Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics at the University of Manitoba, gave a presentation for the  Winnipeg Skeptics, on the “Ethics of Belief” which we are happy to post here:

Suppressed by Scientists and Big Pharma: The Hidden Cancer Cure… But Which One??

Altmeds keep telling us that “they”  (science and “big pharma”) know there is a cure for cancer, but that this knowledge is hidden from us, “so that the multinational pharmaceuticals could continue to make money. Where would they be if diseases like cancer were easily curable?”

Alternative Medicine: Double Corruption

Last year we blogged about Kim Tinkham, who decided to treat her breast cancer with Robert O. Young’s alternative cancer treatment, which he proudly calls the “pH miracle” treatment.

On his website Young proclaimed that his pH miracle treatment had reversed Kim Tinkham’s cancer. Apparently Kim believed him, for she allowed Young to use her in several of his YouTube videos, in which she touted his treatment and stated that it had cured her of her breast cancer.

Why Are Breast Cancer Rates Increasing? Cancer Research UK Provides Some Answers

Breast cancer survival rates have been gradually improving for the past decades and more women are surviving breast cancer than ever before: 8 out of 10 women will now survive the disease for more than five years.  For stage I breast cancers the survival rate is even higher: 9 out of 10.

The downside is that the incidence rate of the disease has also gone up,  and the risk of developing breast cancer is now as high as 1 in 8. Sounds depressing, and the question of course is: why?

In their latest blog post, Cancer Research UK discuss some of the possible explanations.

Luckily, there are a number of things that we can all do to lower our risk of developing cancer:

• don’t smoke – or if you do, stop now
• limit your alcohol intake
• keep active
• mind your body weight
• eat sensibly
• avoid sunburn