TheSkeptiCritic (@TheSkeptiCritic) tweeted at 8:12pm – 16 Apr 13:
TheSkeptiCritic (@TheSkeptiCritic) tweeted at 6:03pm – 19 Apr 13:
TheSkeptiCritic (@TheSkeptiCritic) tweeted at 6:12pm – 19 Apr 13:
January 13, 2012
“Burzynski: Morally reprehensible”
“I find Dr Stanislaw Burzynski morally reprehensible”
“I think this because his treatment is sold for extortionate amounts of money to vulnerable, dying cancer patients in their last months – sometimes bringing them thousands of miles away from the majority of their family – so they can be injected with a drug that’s been in development for more than 30 years, yet has no evidence base to support its use”
Extortionate compared to what?
What evidence do you want?
“We also know that he uses large amounts of chemotherapy in his clinic too but charging extortionate amounts of money for it”
Compared to what?
“Also, I think he is morally reprehensible because if he really has discovered a cure for various cancers, why the hell is he sitting on 30+ years of research when he could publish it and convince the scientific community that antineoplaston therapy is effective?”
What’s your point?
Are you saying that phase 2 clinical trials prove that a drug is EFFECTIVE?
“The FDA’s Drug Review Process:”
“Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and EFFECTIVE”
“[T]he emphasis in Phase 2 is on EFFECTIVENESS”
“This phase aims to obtain PRELIMINARY DATA on whether the drug works in people who have a certain disease or condition”
“Phase 3 studies begin if EVIDENCE of EFFECTIVENESS is shown in Phase 2”
“These studies gather more information about safety and EFFECTIVENESS, studying different populations and different dosages and using the drug in combination with other drugs”
“He has a moral duty to do so”
“Hell, even if the results are negative he has a moral duty given the amount of money he’s charging”
“If it turns out that his treatment is ineffective, he should put his hands up and state”
“Look guys, it was a hypothesis that just didn’t work out.”
“If it turns out that his treatment is ineffective, he’d be wise to donate the large sums of money he’s made to cancer research”
Exactly how much “large sums of money” has he made?
“Sure, it’d be humiliating to have his life’s work undone, but at the same time it means that cancer patients wouldn’t be misled into believing his treatment is effective”
Didn’t you say:
“We also know that he uses large amounts of chemotherapy … ”
and isn’t chemotherapy supposed to work?
“Another thing I don’t understand is why Burzynski’s patients/relatives of patients don’t demand that he publishes the results”
“They’re paying for this research to happen”
“Without their funds, Burzynski wouldn’t have been able to do the research”
“They funded it, so surely they have influence over whether he writes the trial up”
“Or am I just being too hopeful?”
“If I were in that situation and something appeared to be working, I’d want it to be written up to further scientific research so that more people could benefit”
So, you have a problem with waiting until ALL phase 2 clinical trials are completed before publishing the FINAL results?
He’s already provided preliminary reports and data during the phase 2 clinical trial process
“I have one thing to ask of you and one thing only”
“Tweet something along these lines:”
RT @rhysmorgan Burzynski has had more than 30 years to publish his data. Why doesn’t he prove antineoplastons work? http://rhysmorgan.co/2012/01/burzynski-morally-reprehensible
RT @rhysmorgan Burzynski has a moral duty to publish his data. If it works, it’ll be more widely available. http://rhysmorgan.co/2012/01/burzynski-morally-reprehensible
“or of course, phrase it in your own way”
Ahhh … what “The Skeptic” lemmings do best, retwit each other’s tweets like #Sheeple
“Also, if anyone knows of any way that could force Burzynski to present his data or hand it over to someone capable of writing it up”
“I’d appreciate your contact!”
Maybe you should catch up on your reading: