By Keir Liddle
A new blog has appeared with the specific purpose of combatting ““misdirection,” “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and lies posted by entities like Orac” about Stanislaw Burzynski. We thought we would take a look at this new blogs claims and defend ORAC. Not that ORAC needs us to defend him given he knows more about cancer and quackery than most but it’s nice to be able to help.
In the new blog ORAC is accused, seemingly without irony, of ignoring ““facts,” “fact-checking,” “research,” citations and references like the plague” in favour of hyperbole and insults.
Note that this description may seem familiar to Burzynski critics but they might think it fit’s better as a description of the vocal minority of Burzynski supporters whose entire contribution to the debate has been to deny the lack of evidence for ANP and throw insults and defamation at Skeptics.
What is interesting about this latest blog is it attempts to use “evidence” to show that the Skeptics are wrong. It’s a bold and unusual tactic from supporters of Stanislaw Burzynski as normally they just make unsubstantiated allegations about Skeptics harassing patients and being in the pay of Big Pharma.
It’s also an interesting tactic because it allows us to explore, dissect and debunk their evidence.
The first piece of evidence provided by this new attack blog is a link to “Fight4yourhealth.com” a site set up by one Dr. Garry Gordon the self styled father of Chelation therapy. The site is basic wordpress in design and unconvincing in it’s content. It seems to have been included because of the following paragraph:
Urine has also been shown by Dr. Burzynski (Texas) and Dr. Folkman (Harvard University, e.g. endostatin) to contain several compounds that inhibit cancer cells. At present, 72 ingredients have been successfully isolated and identified in CDA-II, and several of these components inhibit cancer in preclinical studies.
The eagle eyed among you will note that while this paragraph has been presented by the attack blog as evidence that antineoplasteons are being studied in Asia it is in fact simply a cursory reference to the extraction of urine to treat cancer. It is not ANP we are talking about here it is a different chemical named “CDA-II”. From the rest of the blog, reporting the treatment being given alongside large dose vitamin C, confidence has not been inspired that a remarkable new cure has been discovered.
The blog then goes on to list research that has been done into CDA-II which again is not one of Burzynski’s ANPs in defence of Burzynsksi ANP.
Does anyone else notice the glaring issue with that line of argument?
If you can’t here is the argument paraphrased:
“These people say antineoplasteons don’t work but look here is some “evidence” that shows another substance that isn’t ANP “works” ergo those people are liars”
Needless to say the evidence provided isn’t massively convincing in persuading that CDA-II will develop into a promising cancer treatment. All of the peer reviewed studies linked to are In Vitro. Or to put it bluntly conducted in petri dishes not humans. The issue with that? .
As “research” into high dose vitamin C has shown if you fill a petri dish with enough of any chemical and some cancer cells at some dosage the cancer cells are likely to die. The problem is this doesn’t automatically translate into benefits in humans. We cannot draw any conclusions about whether it will work as a treatment when administered to humans and our messy biology.
In short this argument has nothing to do with Burzynski beyond a passing mention and I look forward to many more opportunities to debunk the lazily argued whataboutery of this new blog.