The Cult of “Misinformation”

Review of “disinformation,” “misinformation,” and “misdirection” posted by #Burzynski critics

Vicky Forster

“There is no evidence that his treatments are non-toxic and infact a fair bit to the contrary”
March 5 at 10:35am

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support “a fair bit to the contrary” statement

Adam Jacobs

“It is transparently obvious that your goal is to present misleading, biased information. As a result of that, real cancer patients may be harmed. You must clearly understand that now that you’ve read all the feedback above. The fact that you clearly don’t care about the fate of cancer patients is reprehensible”
March 5 at 10:39am

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support “present misleading, biased information,” ” real cancer patients may be harmed,” and “you clearly don’t care about the fate of cancer patients” statements

Scott Hurst

“Adam Jacobs gets this one exactly right. Seconded”
March 5 at 10:51am

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support this statement

Susan Scotvold Goodstein

“I completely agree with the other posters here. Airing a film that is nothing more than an advertisement / informercial for Burzynski’s 30 year medical scam is not presenting a fair and balanced program. I won’t be making any donation to your fund raising CPT12. This is NOT quality programming”
March 5 at 10:57am

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support “Airing a film that is nothing more than an advertisement / informercial” and “medical scam”
statements

David H. Gorski

“Indeed. Colorado Public TV must think we’re complete idiots to think that such a transparent bit of self-serving PR-speak that is so at odds with the obvious reality would fly. The bottom line is that CPT is using a movie promoting an unproven cancer cure to raise money for its pledge drive. It is also featuring the film’s producer and a PR flack representing the subject of the film, all the while posting a “poll” whose very premise is false. (Oncologists are already trying to research less toxic therapies and have been for decades, while Burzynski’s antineoplastons are anything but “nontoxic.”) Then, when criticized, a PR flack for the station tries to feed critics a line of bull about being “neutral” and “telling both sides,” when the film certainly doesn’t do anything of the sort and CPT’s own actions belie its claim to be “neutral.”

Seriously, whoever you are speaking for CPT? Did you actually read that message you posted? Do you really think it’s believable? Disagreement I can handle; contempt for my intelligence kind of ticks me off”
March 5 at 10:58am

FAIL – Your alleged intelligence is at question here since you were given the opportunity to be in Part II of the Documentary, and you prefer to snipe from behind the safety of your keypad

David H. Gorski

“Actually, when CPT does that, I think that David Irving would be the best guy for them to get to comment after the movie. Then, the next week, they can play “Loose Change” and find a 9/11 Truther or two to comment …”
March 5 at 11:03am

FAIL – You believe the 911 party line?

NOT surprising

Robert Blaskiewicz

“How awful does your feedback need to be before you realize that you are going to endanger your viewership?”
March 5 at 12:25pm

241 – Yes
97 – No
2 – Undecided

Catherina Becker

“This is incredibly disappointing and CPT’s answer is lame. To prey on desperate, dying people, encouraging them to fund raise, risk hundreds of thousands of dollars of debts, for life threatening humbug must be the vilest phenomenon in Medicine. To support such behaviour by running adverts for these vultures is equally vile”
March 5 at 12:34pm

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support “prey on desperate, dying people” and “ife threatening humbug” statements

Rene F. Najera

“CPT12, There are no two sides to science. Either the Burzinski treatments work or they don’t. Either he publishes his results so that oncologists and scientists can look at the evidence or he doesn’t. Yes, you are correct in that it is controversial, thought-provoking, etc. But how will you justify it if one, just one person forgoes evidence-based treatment to go pay thousands of dollars to the Burzinski clinic to be allowed into a clinical trial that has not been shown to work? How is that “journalism” or how does it serve the public interest?

I’d have more respect for you if you called it what it is: AN INFOMERCIAL”
March 5 at 12:35pm

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support “INFOMERCIAL” and supposed threat that someone “forgoes evidence-based treatment”as if they can’t think for themselves and need you to “save them”

Footy Stuff

“This gives away the real motivation for the film as its a selling tool for the clinic. If it were a real review of new cancer therapies why isn’t there some balance in the form of a range of oncologists giving their view. Don’t be bought by the conspiracy rubbish – no mainstream Dr or group from a reputable University or department has been able to reproduce his data, a central tenant of medical science. His clinic is virtually unique in charging patients their life savings for treatment that is unproven. This is underhand and preys nj the desperate and broken”
March 5 at 1:35pm via mobile

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support “oncologists giving their view,”
“no mainstream Dr or group from a reputable University or department has been able to reproduce his data,” “charging patients their life savings” and “underhand and preys nj the desperate and broken”statements

Karl Mamer

“CPT a better poll might be “how many of you will cancel your plans to donate to PBS if we run this dangerous informercial? How many who have never donated will now donate?” Oh well. Seems to me people donate to PBS because it’s a small oasis of good science reporting. You’re abusing your privileged access to the public airwaves by running a one sided informercial”
March 5 at 1:39pm

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support “dangerous informercial”
and “running a one sided informercial” statements

Adam Jacobs

“I think some people here are confused. No-one is saying we shouldn’t research non-toxic cancer therapies. All we are saying is that Burzynski is not doing that: he uses toxic chemotherapy, but pretends that it’s non-toxic. Really not the same thing”
March 5 at 3:21pm

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support “he uses toxic chemotherapy” statement

Advertisement