The Burzynski Clinic Responds... Sort Of

Based upon my previous blog post about Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, Lowell Hubbs thought it was his duty to ensure the Burzynski Clinic knew about it.  Thus, like the good little CAM foot soldier that he is, he took it upon himself to send an email to Burzynski (and sent me a copy just for kicks). It reads as follows:

To: corporate@burzynskiclinic.com  
From: editor@vacfacts.info (Lowell Hubbs)


Subject: Information on a blog trashing and slandering Burzynski Clinic, as Quackery.


This blog is as well [sic] has been an ongoing and endless and slanderous personal attack on me. Quack of the Day: Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski http://lowellhubbs.blogspot.com/2012/01/quack-of-day-dr-stanislaw-burzynski.html This is my counter blog: […] I have followed Dr Burzynski’s work for quite some time, and I am obviously a strong supporter of his work and treatment, in the ways that I can. This blog I above referenced to [sic] has a clear pattern of slandering and bashed [sic] any alternative information and/or truth promoting doctor on the planet. This is my site: Dr. Burzynski […]

Obviously I removed the references to Mr. Hubbs own blogs/websites because I'm not about to steer traffic his direction and I have an unwritten rule about only linking to scientifically credible websites (with exceptions given for comedic and shock value).  However the remainder of the email is posted as written... broken English and all (the URL referenced in Mr. Hubbs' email has since changed so it no longer functions).

Let me translate Mr. Hubbs' comment into what it really means. Basically it says “Oh this big mean person is picking on me and I don’t like it, so I’m going to tell the Burzynski Clinic about it in the hopes that if I massage their ego enough and tell them how great they are, they will think I’m special and go after him to shut down his blog once and for all”.

Mr. Hubbs also decided to add to his email when he forwarded a copy of it to me - that text is as follows:

"And as far as your again twisted and slanderous claims as to how Burzynski handed the blogging and other unwarranted attacks on his practice; when you actually read what is there, it is not even close to what you claim it is at all. He handled those situations professionally and in the legal manner they should be. If informing a person to cease and desist their slanderous behavior in print, is classified as threat in your mind, so be it. Wow." ~Lowell Hubbs

Sadly for Mr. Hubbs, his childish antics won’t work.

First of all Mr. Hubbs doesn't appear to understand the difference between slander and libel (even though it has been explained to him numerous times), and since this blog is in written form what he is really looking for is the term libel. Since Hubbs can’t seem to distinguish between the two, perhaps it would be best if he would consider using the more generic term of defamation.

Either way, my statements about Burzynski are far from libelous. First of all I doubt anything on this blog is honestly defamatory to Burzynski’s reputation since his reputation has already taken a significant hit, and either way the truth can't be defamatory. When I refer to the facts about his legal troubles, the facts that his associates have went after random bloggers, or the facts about how he has been working with antineoplastons for more than 30 years and yet he has been unable to publish any reputable peer-reviewed studies validating their usage… those are not libelous statements as they are true.

I am also not incorrect that Burzynski has been performing never-ending clinical studies or how he has yet to perform any phase III randomized, controlled trials of antineoplastons as a treatment for cancer. These are not opinions – these are facts. So what exactly does Hubbs consider to be defamatory in nature when I’m either stating facts, or I’m stating an opinion? Have I stated anything I don’t believe to be true? No. Have I presented information as fact with reckless disregard on whether the information is true or not? Clearly not as I have even sourced the majority of my statements.

If Hubbs is going to toss out the claim of slander (libel), he might want to take a few minutes out of his hectic day to educate himself. I would suggest he start with Underwager v Salter 22 F.3d 730 and New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254.  What he would find is in order to claim defamation, the public figure (in this case Burzynski) would need to prove actual malice (aka "ill will").  This means they would need to prove that I did not believe the statements I wrote (which is impossible since I believe them), or they would need to prove that I published these statements without any concern whether they were true or not (I care, which is why I didn't even bother to mention numerous accusations about Burzynski that I was unable to verify or that I felt did not have sufficient supporting evidence to ensure they were factual).

I don't wish to get into a conversation about US tort law, but the bottom line is Hubbs has no idea what he is talking about, and I'm quite certain that Burzynski's PR team is well aware of US law surrounding libel which is why Burzynski staffers chased after bloggers in the UK rather than the US.  However, even that wasn’t sufficient and you will note out of the individuals whom I listed in the original blog as having been chased after by Burzynski’s staff they all still have their blogs up and running.

Hubbs seems to think Burzynski's team handled those situations professionally when in fact they ended up sending out an apology for Mr. Stephens’ behavior and they were backpedaling faster than watching the Tour de France in reverse. They even ended their relationship with Stephens (according to their own press release) and they apologized for the incidents.

Apparently Hubbs didn’t bother to actually read all of the emails sent from Mr. Stephens to Rhys Morgan where Mr. Stephens actually threatened to contact Mr. Morgan’s school and where he even went so far as to send him a Google satellite image of his house in some type of veiled threat. Hubbs obviously also appears to have overlooked the other few dozen emails Mr. Stephens sent on behalf of Burzynski, or even the responses left by Mr. Stephens (aka "MAS") over at Yahoo Answers where he attempted to post personal information about people he disagreed with, where he made veiled threats against others, and where he even stooped to calling people "ugly" and "senile".  Mind you his tactics didn't work and his responses were incredibly childish, but it just goes to show how low these people will stoop in order to silence their critics.

Thus if Hubbs honestly believes threatening 17-year olds via email equates to acting “professionally”, or chasing people around on Yahoo Answers is appropriate, then so be it. Apparently we will have to agree to disagree on that one, however I find it incredibly telling that Burzynski had to issue an apology for the very actions Hubbs claims were professional.

Perhaps it would be best if Hubbs took the time to actually read the material I cite before commenting. This just doesn’t seem to be working out for him, but then again... nothing ever does.  So what was the response to Hubbs' email to the Burzynski Clinic?  Read on:

From: Azad Rastegar
To: Lowell Hubbs


Good evening, Thank you for your e-mail. We did see the “Quack of the Day” blog. It’s sad and unfortunate that some individuals can be so cruel, evil, and closed minded in their behavior even with the facts clearly in front of them. We will focus on doing what is right and that is treating our patients and giving them the attention they need. Thank you again for your support.


Best regards,
------------------------------------------------------
Azad Rastegar
Director of Business Development
Director of Admissions Department
Company Spokesperson
Burzynski Clinic
9432 Katy Freeway, Suite 150
Houston, TX 77055
AR@BurzynskiClinic.com

I find it interesting that the Burzynski Clinic seems to have already reviewed my blog even before Hubbs had sent them a message, which must mean I'm doing something right to get noticed.  Well OK they probably just have a Google Alert set up for key search terms like "Burzynski" and "Quack"... but it makes me feel special either way.

I also find the humor in how they describe my blog as "cruel" and "evil" yet they are unable to cite any specific statements which are untrue.  Newflash for Azad... the truth can sometimes be cruel, but you have your employer to blame for that. 

Either way you can see they really don't seem to care about my blog, just as they likely don't care about the few dozen other blogs that have been written about Burzynski.  Perhaps that lack of concern stems from the fact that they know the content of these blogs is actually true.  Or perhaps the lack of concern is because they know the more they try to silence their critics, the more critics will appear (a variation of the Streisand effect).  Although either of these reasons could be legitimate, I'm guessing it likely has to do with them not wanting to focus upon random bloggers while they are preparing for Dr. Burzynski's appearance in front of the Texas Medical Board, which is scheduled for April of this year.
 
Needless to say, I fully expect to be writing more about Dr. Burzynski in the future - especially after a decision has been rendered after the April hearing.  Until then, Mr. Hubbs will need to continue to proclaim how Burzynski is the brave maverick doctor who is worthy of respect and who should never be challenged. 

Let's see how that works out for him.

Quack of the Day: Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski

Cancer.  Just the word itself causes people to gasp as they wonder if it will impact them or their loved ones.  If you ask a typical person about their families, chances are they have lost at least one person close to them from cancer, or they may have fought cancer themselves.  In fact, it is estimated that over 40% of the public will be diagnosed with cancer at some point during their lifetimes, so there is good reason to be concerned.

Cancer can impact everyone.  It impacts both men and women, both young and old, and members of all races.  In some cases, if detected early, cancer can be treated and the cancer can be considered to be in remission.  In other cases, a late cancer diagnosis which has metastasized to numerous parts of the body can essentially be a death sentence.  Although treatments have improved and death rates have fallen, there is still no known cure.
Because of this, it is not uncommon for people to fear cancer.  It is not uncommon for cancer patients to try every possible treatment known to man even if some of those treatments are experimental or unproven.  It is also not uncommon for medical conspiracy theorists to proclaim some random doctor or self-proclaimed cancer expert has a miracle cure that can treat cancer patients or that this miracle cure is being suppressed by "Big Pharma", the FDA, AMA, CDC, WHO, or some other random government agency.

This is where Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski comes into play.  Burzynski has positioned himself as a victim.  He claims he can treat and in many cases even suggests he can cure cancer, but because his treatments would negatively impact the pharmaceutical companies or mainstream cancer treatment centers (and thus suggesting it would harm their bottom-line), he is being unfairly targeted and muzzled from speaking the "truth" about cancer.

Thus, Burzynski has decided the best way to get his message out to the masses is to star in a movie about himself to share his story, and of course like all the other alternative medicine mockumentaries prior, the movie serves no legitimate scientific benefit and is heavily biased.  Of course the glaring lack of peer-reviewed science or supporting evidence is irrelevant to a medical conspiracy theorist, and as such the alternative medical proponents such as Lowell Hubbs have latched on to this little film as evidence of some massive conspiracy.  They will even go so far as to cite it as a legitimate source of data, and they will refer to the film as if it was a true unbiased and scientifically supported documentary. 

It really shouldn't surprise anyone that Mr. Hubbs would be a fan of Burzynski, because Mr. Hubbs is a fan of pretty much anyone who labels themselves as a practitioner of alternative medical therapies, or anyone who has ever positioned themselves as the antithesis to mainstream modern medicine.  Thus, true to form, Mr. Hubbs has inundated my inbox with comment after comment bragging about Burzynski and his miracle cancer cures.

Burzynski himself isn't exactly new to the cancer scene, and he has been involved in his research for around 35 years.  Burzynski focuses upon what he calls "antineoplaston therapy" and he offers his treatments at his clinic located in Houston, Texas.  Initially, Burzynski was extracting these antineoplastons from urine he collected from the restrooms in public parks (which is why Mr. Hubbs has stated in the past that a doctor was able to cure cancer by extracting a substance from urine), but later Burzynski synthesized the antineoplastons in a lab as it was obviously much easier, and much less expensive.

It should be noted that antineoplaston therapy has never been approved by the FDA, and Burzynski has published no peer-reviewed science in support of his treatments.  Burzynski has been approved to perform FDA testing on his treatments, yet to date, no phase III randomized, controlled trials of antineoplastons as a treatment for cancer have been conducted.  Ever.  Read that again - in the 35 years that Burzynski has been performing clinical trials on antineoplastons, no phase III randomized, controlled trials of antineoplastons as a treatment for cancer have been conducted.  This means that Burzynski has never performed a study to compare his antineoplaston therapy against more conventional therapies, and it doesn't appear he has any immediate plans to do so.

Burzynski has actually performed some clinical trials, namely phase I and phase II trials, yet the results of those trials remain unpublished.  Out of 61 clinical trials listed under Burzynski's name, 50 of them are in an unknown status, seven have been withdrawn, two were terminated, one is not yet recruiting, and in one single case, Burzynski has actually finished his phase II clinical trial.  So out of a total of 61 trials reported in the past 35 years only one has been finished, yet where is the peer-reviewed science showing the magical results?  The reality is, 60 of the 61 trials listed are phase II clinical trials, and the only phase III trial listed is the one that states it is not yet recruiting.  The information was submitted in December 2010 with a start date listed as December 2011 and a completion date of December 2015, yet there haven't been any updates and it appears it still pending as "not yet open for participant recruitment".

Based upon this information, we only have one single study to focus upon, and that was the phase II trial that dealt with how well antineoplaston therapy works in treating patients with progressive or recurrent stage IV melanoma.  The trial was started in 1996 and shows as completed in 2005, so what is the explanation on why the results haven't been published?

If the results don't prove that antineoplaston therapy is effective, then why is he continuing to promote it?  If the results do suggest that antineoplaston therapy is effective in treating cancer, why hasn't the data been published for all to see?  What purpose does it serve to suppress data if he has faith in the outcome of his clinical trial?  The fact is antineoplaston therapy is still considered experimental, so why is Burzynski promoting it as a legitimate treatment even before publishing results of his own studies?

As you can see there are a lot of questions, but Burzynski doesn't appear to be offering many answers.  It seems that although he can't legally treat patients with antineoplaston therapy, he can enroll them into one of his many clinical trials, so this little loophole has allowed Burzynski to operate his clinic for 35 years even though he has never published any results from those trials in any reputable peer-reviewed journals.  One might assume that such a "visionary" would want to share his treatments and clinical results with the world in order to have an honest impact upon the future of cancer treatments... but alas that doesn't appear to be the case with Burzynski.

Of course Burzynski is no stranger to controversy or the courtroom either.  He has been involved in various court cases since at least 1983, ranging from violations of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to  fraud to... well more fraud.  It seems most recently, Burzynski has found himself being investigated once again by the Texas Medical Board, although that case is currently pending and a hearing is scheduled for April 2012.

It also appears that Burzynski doesn't take kindly to people challenging his viewpoints.  In cases where someone calls out his nonsense, he has staff members send them threatening email messages as he recently did to Rhys Morgan in response to a blog posting Mr. Morgan published.  He also did the same to Le Canard Noir (Andy Lewis) for a post he wrote entitled The False Hope of the Burzynski Clinic and he did the same to Peter Bowditch. 

I'm sure there are others, but perhaps if Burzynski would spend as much time focused upon producing scientific data as a result of his neverending clinical trials rather than chasing after random bloggers who happen to think he is a fraud or a quack, he might actually get somewhere.  Then again, it is safe to say if the results of his ongoing trials were actually impressive, we would have read about them decades ago.

It would seem when you really examine the data, Burzynski simply doesn't have the science or research to support his viewpoints, and I find it disturbing that he promotes the myth that he can so easily cure cancer without any scientific basis to make such a claim.  He gives cancer victims and family members false hope, and he hasn't shown his treatments are effective at anything other than shrinking the size of a person's bank account.

I of course could go into much more detail about Burzynski, his impressive claims, his lack of scientific data, and his little movie, but why repeat what has already been done?

1. Stanislaw Burzynski: Bad medicine, a bad movie, and bad P.R.
2. Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s “personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy”: Can he do what he claims for cancer?
3. Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, antineoplastons, and the selling of an orphan drug as a cancer cure
4. Quackwatch: Stanislaw Burzynski and "Antineoplastons"
5. Dr. Saul Green's Letter to the Washington Post
6. The Compassion Gambit

Of course if you are really, really interested - here is a list of blogs which speak about Burzynski, his treatments, his lack of published science, and much, much more.

All of this aside, claims that a miracle cure exists for cancer won't even hold up against common sense.  Cancer is not just one lone medical condition that responds to a one-size-catch-all treatment.  Cancer encompasses many different forms of the disease which all present themselves differently and which respond to treatments differently.  To suggest there is any one treatment that can so easily cure so many various forms of cancer immediately raises suspicion.

If such a cure was readily available, and if such a cure actually worked the medical insurance industry would be spending tens of millions of dollars to ensure the studies were fully funded and that the treatment was in widespread use. Conventional cancer treatments can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars or even more, yet Burzynski's antineoplastons can be synthesized and are available from medical suppliers for as little as 80 cents per dose. Doesn't that seem like something the insurance industry could get behind in order to drastically slash their costs and improve their profits?

Either way, we find ourselves in familiar territory here because once again we are being told the only reason these miracle cures aren't in widespread use is because there is some conspiracy at work.  Burzynski staff members, medical conspiracy theorists, alternative medical gurus, and "Internet researchers" are quick to list any number of excuses on why Burzynski's hypothesis have yet to be published or why there is no peer-reviewed science supporting his claims, but at the end of the day that is just what they are... excuses.

The reality is antineoplastons have been studied elsewhere outside of Burzynski's clinic, and yet there have been no indications that they work as well as Burzynski has claimed.  Japanese scientists at the Kurume University School of Medicine have studied antineoplastons as have researchers from Mansoura University in Mansoura, Egypt.  Their results generally reflect a lack of activity, however that isn't to say there isn't any benefit to them at all or that continued research is worthless, but the current reality is they are not a miracle cure as we have been led to believe. 

If antineoplastons are really as effective as Burzynski claims, or if they are a viable cancer treatment, then by all means Burzynski has the option... or rather the duty, to publish his findings for all to see.  I think we all know why that hasn't happened - and it has more to do with keeping the steady flow of scared, ignorant patients coming through the doors year after year than it does from his research somehow being suppressed or manipulated.

Meanwhile people continue to die from cancer each and every day while proponents of complimentary and alternative medicine (CAM) attempt to convince us that cancer can be cured via unproven treatments and snakeoil. 

Some people have no shame... and unfortunately in this case that lack of shame leads to false hope, increased suffering, and unnecessary expense.