Discussion:
Chinese scientists accuse U.S. group of cancer fraud
(too old to reply)
Mark Thorson
2012-02-04 05:49:31 UTC
Permalink
"It is suspected that Chinese patients have been tricked
into going to America to be laboratory rats," Li said.

http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012-02/02/content_14528005.htm
Bob Officer
2012-02-04 13:55:34 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:49:31 -0800, in misc.health.alternative, Mark
Post by Mark Thorson
"It is suspected that Chinese patients have been tricked
into going to America to be laboratory rats," Li said.
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012-02/02/content_14528005.htm
sounds to me like a someone is trying to expand his market.

You would thing after 35 years he would have some sort of data to
publish for peer review.
--
Bob Officer
The 1st rule of Usenet, do not commit a typo or misspell a word while flaming someone else for the same offense.
"And you have been taught admitting you are into "child devolvement"." Carole Hubbard flaming me for a typo, while herself committing a typo.
Message-ID: <rNmCq.6761$***@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
Steelclaws
2012-02-05 11:28:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:49:31 -0800, in misc.health.alternative, Mark
Post by Mark Thorson
"It is suspected that Chinese patients have been tricked
into going to America to be laboratory rats," Li said.
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012-02/02/content_14528005.htm
sounds to me like a someone is trying to expand his market.
You would thing after 35 years he would have some sort of data to
publish for peer review.
Yep. Most trials do not take anything like 35 years, and the data is
published hell of a lot faster than that.

I do have a sneaking suspicion that he's not publishing anything in peer
review because he has no results to publish.
--
The reality is that the antivaxxers' work will result in
babies dying. The reality is that belief in homeopathy will
result in more babies dying. The reality is that denying science-
based medicine will result in more babies dying.
- Phil Plait
Bob Officer
2012-02-05 14:11:43 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 11:28:09 +0000 (UTC), in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Steelclaws
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:49:31 -0800, in misc.health.alternative, Mark
Post by Mark Thorson
"It is suspected that Chinese patients have been tricked
into going to America to be laboratory rats," Li said.
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012-02/02/content_14528005.htm
sounds to me like a someone is trying to expand his market.
You would thing after 35 years he would have some sort of data to
publish for peer review.
Yep. Most trials do not take anything like 35 years, and the data is
published hell of a lot faster than that.
I do have a sneaking suspicion that he's not publishing anything in peer
review because he has no results to publish.
I would be interested in seeing his 1, 3, 5 year survival rates.

We know Clark's was near zero if not zero. Less than one would see
with a placebo effect, Simoncini rates are also worse than placebo
rates would means they actually do more harm than good.
--
Bob Officer
The 1st rule of Usenet, do not commit a typo or misspell a word while flaming someone else for the same offense.
"And you have been taught admitting you are into "child devolvement"." Carole Hubbard flaming me for a typo, while herself committing a typo.
Message-ID: <rNmCq.6761$***@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
Steelclaws
2012-02-05 15:58:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Steelclaws
I do have a sneaking suspicion that he's not publishing anything in peer
review because he has no results to publish.
I would be interested in seeing his 1, 3, 5 year survival rates.
So would I - and I bet, once again, there is a very good reason why he
does not publish those in his website.

Ed Uthman queried 800+ members of the PATHO-L listserv. Not one of them
reported a single case of response to Burzynski antineoplaston
treatment.
(Source: a tweet by Ed Uthman)
Post by Bob Officer
We know Clark's was near zero if not zero. Less than one would see
with a placebo effect, Simoncini rates are also worse than placebo
rates would means they actually do more harm than good.
It's the same with Gerson: I've posted the results of that _naturopath_
made article on follow-up on 5-year survival rate, it was 0%. I would
suspect that is pretty much true of the rest of the cancer charlatans.
--
There's this thing called being so open-minded your brains
drop out.
- Richard Dawkins
D Baten
2012-02-05 22:05:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steelclaws
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Steelclaws
I do have a sneaking suspicion that he's not publishing anything in
peer
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Steelclaws
review because he has no results to publish.
I would be interested in seeing his 1, 3, 5 year survival rates.
So would I - and I bet, once again, there is a very good reason why he
does not publish those in his website.
For those who have not read before, there is quite a lot of information
available

You can start with:

http://www.cancer.umn.edu/cancerinfo/NCI/CDR539333.html

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/stanislaw-burzynski-antineoplastons-and-the-orphan-drug-sodium-phenyl-butyrate/

Next are the PubMed resources>

http://tinyurl.com/79mmdbo

<http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?spons=%22Burzynski+Research+Institute%22&spons_ex=Y>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://tinyurl.com/72yq8ww

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Burzynski%20SR%22[Author]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://tinyurl.com/7zpooll

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Link&db=pubmed&dbFrom=PubMed&from_uid=1583762>
---------------------------------------------------------------
Another opinion piece:

http://rhysmorgan.co/2011/08/the-burzynski-clinic/
Steelclaws
2012-02-05 22:19:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by D Baten
Post by Steelclaws
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Steelclaws
I do have a sneaking suspicion that he's not publishing anything in
peer
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Steelclaws
review because he has no results to publish.
I would be interested in seeing his 1, 3, 5 year survival rates.
So would I - and I bet, once again, there is a very good reason why
he does not publish those in his website.
For those who have not read before, there is quite a lot of
information available
http://www.cancer.umn.edu/cancerinfo/NCI/CDR539333.html
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/stanislaw-burzynski-
antin
Post by D Baten
eoplastons-and-the-orphan-drug-sodium-phenyl-butyrate/
Next are the PubMed resources>
http://tinyurl.com/79mmdbo
<http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?spons=%
22Burzynski+Research+Inst
Post by D Baten
itute%22&spons_ex=Y>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://tinyurl.com/72yq8ww
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Burzynski%20SR%22[Author]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://tinyurl.com/7zpooll
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?
cmd=Link&db=pubmed&dbFrom=Pub
Post by D Baten
Med&from_uid=1583762>
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://rhysmorgan.co/2011/08/the-burzynski-clinic/
Thanks for digging all of these up. :-)
--
Logical fallacies are a primary tool of pseudoscientists to
fool their marks. The ability to recognize logical fallacies is
nearly important as the knowledge of what does and does not
represent good scientific evidence for the purposes of
recognizing what is and is not quackery.
- David Gorski
Bob Officer
2012-02-05 22:16:27 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 15:58:23 +0000 (UTC), in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Steelclaws
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Steelclaws
I do have a sneaking suspicion that he's not publishing anything in
peer
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Steelclaws
review because he has no results to publish.
I would be interested in seeing his 1, 3, 5 year survival rates.
So would I - and I bet, once again, there is a very good reason why he
does not publish those in his website.
Ed Uthman queried 800+ members of the PATHO-L listserv. Not one of them
reported a single case of response to Burzynski antineoplaston
treatment.
(Source: a tweet by Ed Uthman)
That alone should tell us something.
Post by Steelclaws
Post by Bob Officer
We know Clark's was near zero if not zero. Less than one would see
with a placebo effect, Simoncini rates are also worse than placebo
rates would means they actually do more harm than good.
It's the same with Gerson: I've posted the results of that _naturopath_
made article on follow-up on 5-year survival rate, it was 0%. I would
suspect that is pretty much true of the rest of the cancer charlatans.
That is really telling because a placebo effect would have between a
12-18% rate from medium sized samples, wouldn't it?

The lack of published results is a warning flag.
--
Bob Officer
The 1st rule of Usenet, do not commit a typo or misspell a word while flaming someone else for the same offense.
"And you have been taught admitting you are into "child devolvement"." Carole Hubbard flaming me for a typo, while herself committing a typo.
Message-ID: <rNmCq.6761$***@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
Steelclaws
2012-02-05 22:25:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Steelclaws
Post by Bob Officer
I would be interested in seeing his 1, 3, 5 year survival rates.
So would I - and I bet, once again, there is a very good reason why he
does not publish those in his website.
Ed Uthman queried 800+ members of the PATHO-L listserv. Not one of them
reported a single case of response to Burzynski antineoplaston
treatment.
(Source: a tweet by Ed Uthman)
That alone should tell us something.
It does, indeed. There just are no biopsies etc that show any response
to antineoplastons - and moreover, Uthman is a TX pathologist. If anyone
was likely to run into them, he would.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Steelclaws
Post by Bob Officer
We know Clark's was near zero if not zero. Less than one would see
with a placebo effect, Simoncini rates are also worse than placebo
rates would means they actually do more harm than good.
It's the same with Gerson: I've posted the results of that
_naturopath_
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Steelclaws
made article on follow-up on 5-year survival rate, it was 0%. I would
suspect that is pretty much true of the rest of the cancer charlatans.
That is really telling because a placebo effect would have between a
12-18% rate from medium sized samples, wouldn't it?
Spontaneous remission rate is around 20%, so it's a certainty that the
treatment is worse than placebo. Ok, it was a small sample, but you'd
expect at least one in remission - only one of the patients was alive,
and he had an active non-hodgkin's lymphoma.
Post by Bob Officer
The lack of published results is a warning flag.
Yep, especially when it goes on for such a long time.

Speaking of which, someone dumped a load of Elron's books on me.
Groan...
--
Antivaccine activists are the epitome of the arrogance of
ignorance, who think that testimonials and anecdotes trump
knowledge that comes from scientists who, rather than just
cherry picking papers to "study" vaccines, do -- oh, you know --
actual scientific research on vaccines.
- Orac
Bob Officer
2012-02-05 23:56:07 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 22:25:41 +0000 (UTC), in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Steelclaws
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Steelclaws
Post by Bob Officer
I would be interested in seeing his 1, 3, 5 year survival rates.
So would I - and I bet, once again, there is a very good reason why he
does not publish those in his website.
Ed Uthman queried 800+ members of the PATHO-L listserv. Not one of
them
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Steelclaws
reported a single case of response to Burzynski antineoplaston
treatment.
(Source: a tweet by Ed Uthman)
That alone should tell us something.
It does, indeed. There just are no biopsies etc that show any response
to antineoplastons - and moreover, Uthman is a TX pathologist. If anyone
was likely to run into them, he would.
I looked up to see who he was.
Post by Steelclaws
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Steelclaws
Post by Bob Officer
We know Clark's was near zero if not zero. Less than one would see
with a placebo effect, Simoncini rates are also worse than placebo
rates would means they actually do more harm than good.
It's the same with Gerson: I've posted the results of that
_naturopath_
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Steelclaws
made article on follow-up on 5-year survival rate, it was 0%. I would
suspect that is pretty much true of the rest of the cancer charlatans.
That is really telling because a placebo effect would have between a
12-18% rate from medium sized samples, wouldn't it?
Spontaneous remission rate is around 20%, so it's a certainty that the
treatment is worse than placebo. Ok, it was a small sample, but you'd
expect at least one in remission - only one of the patients was alive,
and he had an active non-hodgkin's lymphoma.
Doesn't that rate depend on the type of cancer?

An Aside: I was talking about the rate of scar formation with a
surgeon once, he was recommending a cream and said it didn't hurt. it
made the patient feel as if they were doing something positive, and
to him it seems to cut back of scar formation, while it could be a
placebo effect, he confessed, the mental health of the patient was
more positive with one's that used the over the counter cream, than
those which did nothing.
Post by Steelclaws
Post by Bob Officer
The lack of published results is a warning flag.
Yep, especially when it goes on for such a long time.
Speaking of which, someone dumped a load of Elron's books on me.
Groan...
Well if you really wanted to, take the books apart chop up bleach and
make your own quality paper? They used to be printed on fairly decent
paper.
--
Bob Officer
The 1st rule of Usenet, do not commit a typo or misspell a word while flaming someone else for the same offense.
"And you have been taught admitting you are into "child devolvement"." Carole Hubbard flaming me for a typo, while herself committing a typo.
Message-ID: <rNmCq.6761$***@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
Mark Thorson
2012-02-05 19:35:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steelclaws
Yep. Most trials do not take anything like 35 years, and the data is
published hell of a lot faster than that.
I do have a sneaking suspicion that he's not publishing anything in peer
review because he has no results to publish.
That's like saying you suspect Sylvia Browne won't
take the Randi Million Dollar Challenge because she
knows she'd flunk.
Bob Officer
2012-02-05 22:17:28 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 11:35:07 -0800, in misc.health.alternative, Mark
Post by Mark Thorson
Post by Steelclaws
Yep. Most trials do not take anything like 35 years, and the data is
published hell of a lot faster than that.
I do have a sneaking suspicion that he's not publishing anything in peer
review because he has no results to publish.
That's like saying you suspect Sylvia Browne won't
take the Randi Million Dollar Challenge because she
knows she'd flunk.
Sylvia's batting rate is worse than Random Guessing.
--
Bob Officer
The 1st rule of Usenet, do not commit a typo or misspell a word while flaming someone else for the same offense.
"And you have been taught admitting you are into "child devolvement"." Carole Hubbard flaming me for a typo, while herself committing a typo.
Message-ID: <rNmCq.6761$***@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
Loading...