Truth, Lies, Documentaries and Dr Burzynski

I'm skeptical about Dr. Burzynski.

(This blog post is about the movie entitled "Burzynski". For the record, I am not involved in the medical industry at all. I am also not trying to prove anything, but merely sharing my thoughts.)

For a few years I had a best friend who was a compulsive liar. Because I was so used to honesty, the idea of my best friend lying to me didn't even enter my mind. I believed he was playing rugby for the South African under 21 rugby team, that he had a fancy car he wanted to sell me, and that he needed to borrow money for this, that, and the other.

I was also a Christian. I knew there were things in the bible that didn't seem quite right, but after watching Ron Wyatt's documentary on the discovery of the Ark, I was completely convinced that the Ark actually existed, which proved the reliability of the bible. I wondered why such an important documentary was not on television, for the whole world to see. I wanted to find out more, and so I looked up Ron Wyatt on the internet.

One reviewer described Ron as being able to "Sell sand in the desert." That was how convincing he was, but as soon as I had looked him up I realized that he not only discovered the Ark, he also discovered eighteen other bible artifacts, which no-one else could find, including Jesus' blood! The word "quack" suddenly entered my mind, and the strongest evidence I had for the reliability of the bible was flushed down the toilet.

It was partially as a result of finding out that things I believed in were lies, that I have learned to always check things that sound a bit far fetched, often leading to upsetting people who are so fond of the lies that they believe.

In a biased documentary it seems that there is often a little piece of undeniable evidence that is either ignored, or brushed over, and covered up with hundreds of pieces of potential evidence that overwhelm our minds, and lead us to not even considering that hidden obstacle.

When I hear, read, or watch anything that doesn't seem quite right, it is this tiny, but overriding obstacle that I look out for.

Unfortunately when it comes to medical claims, it's a bit more difficult to find this obstacle in what he's claiming, because most of the sciency stuff that he says doesn't mean anything to me. It would be easier to evaluate his claims if he was saying that his prayers cured cancer. I've heard that a couple of times from people, saying that someone they knew prayed and the cancer instantly disappeared. In that case the obstacle is very easy to identify, it's one of these: They never have details for a doctor who can verify their claims, prayer never fixes amputated limbs, and double-blind tests have shown that prayer does nothing for sick people.

If Dr. Burzynski had said that it was prayer that was curing cancer, I'm sure alarm bells would have been ringing no matter how many people believed that Dr. Burzynski had cured them.

In the medical world there are certain standards that are required in order to consider a conclusion to be valid. One is that their articles are peer reviewed, which sources say Dr. Burzynski doesn't, and the other is testing methods. The testing method I know of is the double-blind test, where neither the tester, nor the patient know whether the medicine is real or not. This is a great test to prove that homeopathic "medicine", and prayer doesn't work, but it's not really suitable for dying patients.

After reading a few articles on Dr. Burzynski the following six alarm bells stand out:

1. No-one else has been able to get antineoplastons to work.
2. His articles are not peer reviewed.
3. The movie is entirely one sided. It is made from Dr. Burzynski's point of view. What we really need to see is an investigative movie, something like what Derren Brown does.
4. If I chose to be a medical researcher for the American Cancer Society, I would have had every intention to cure diseases, regardless of how much money the company I worked for might be making from them.
5. If it is true that Dr. B is not what he says he is, it's quite simply because he makes a hell of a lot of money from this. I've read that his treatments can cost around $20,000 to $30,000 per year. It seems a bit steep for someone who cares so much about his patients' well-being.
6. Obviously having the patent allows him to make money, but doesn't that mean that Dr. B is potentially preventing other doctors from curing cancer?

I think the big obstacle is either #1, or #2.

So, in conclusion, I cannot prove that Dr. B is a "quack", but he certainly seems very suspicious. I'm a big supporter of the scientific method, which requires people to try and disprove other peoples' hypothesis, and I welcome anyone to point out any mistakes in this blog.

Whether it's Dr. B, or the American Cancer Society that's the problem, I'm sure that we can all agree that the real problem is money!

Here are my sources:
Anti-B sites:
http://www.burzynskiscam.com/
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski1.htmlhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/05/harnessing_peoples_good_to_pay_for_woo.php
http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/TreatmentsandSideEffects/ComplementaryandAlternativeMedicine/PharmacologicalandBiologicalTreatment/antineoplaston-therapy
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/burzynski.htm

Pro-B:
https://www.burzynskimovie.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=96&Itemid=77

Interesting reading (Science - how to fake it):
http://madartlab.com/2011/03/24/faking-it/