It’s pathetically naive. I’ve never even seen a black helicopter.

Mind you, I do spend most of my time in our big secret underground laboratory underneath the crater of a volcano and I don’t get out much.

You might say, “they are preying on desperate cancer patients and families of cancer patients” by carelessly misleading their readers about Burzynski and his invention.

What’s the proposed motivation for The Skeptics™ to “carelessly mislead” patients and their families?

SCENE. Night. Dark, scary medieval castle. Thunderstorm ensues. The evil SKEPTIC™ evilly rubs his evil hands together.

SKEPTIC™: Mwahahahaha! Patient With Cancer Who Once Had Hope, now your hope is gone, and I have cleverly stolen it with my blog posts and tweets! With your hope stolen, I shall now rule the world!

We need physicians and scientists, in their interactions with the public and the media, to be able to clarify and summarise a complex story in simple terms that a 10-yr old child should be able to receive and understand. What we have from Burzynski is something that you might expect a 10-yr old child to give as an explanation.

We see this very often with SCAMsters. They use concepts lifted from science like energy, resonance, support for the immune system that are not wrong in a straightforward sense, but are misapplied, taken out of context or over-strecthed analogies. When you read any substantial portion of material from these people there is a sense of pervading wrongness about it, which I think is well-demonstrated in those Burzysnki quotes. If the sceptic then picks individual assertions to criticise, such as your comments on HER2, it can almost seem nit-picking because to criticise that specific point you have to go on at length to bring a sledgehammer of counter-argument to crush that one nut and yet having done so there remains a vaguely unsatisfying feeling that the taking down of that one claim does not really address the issue that the whole article, interview, website is cut from whole-cloth where every single sentence of it is founded on a false understanding even if individual sentences may say things that are actually true, like “cancer is a disease of the genes”.

Whether it is designed to deceive or achieves that purpose inadvertently one can easily see why grandiose prose from the likes of Burzynski can mislead the non-medical public while setting off a whole load of alarm bells to anyone with some medical or scientific understanding. It’s like hearing music that bears some resemblance to a familiar tune, but is played in the wrong key, at the wrong tempo and on instruments that don’t work properly. The musician would spot it immediately, but a non-musician may not.

How did we all miss this protocol ‘ healing by positivity resonance’.

Eugenie Mielczarek

Unfortunately in our culture clinical competence is often related in the minds of patients with material success. They are more likely to take the word of and pay higher fees to someone driving a Lexus than one driving a Prius.

It is actually most of Burzynski’s patients have to be well educated to be able to afford his fees. All one has to do is look and a number of Nobel laureates to see what can happen to very well educated people when they move beyond their knowledge base. It is actually “well educated” people who are some of the biggest consumers of misinformation. Being highly educated and being able to think critically do not always go together. Thank you for helping you readers see how it should be done.

I’ve pulled all of the above from the quotation you gave from Burzinski. It’s a fascinating sample of a certain kind of tactic – just repeat whatever the opposition says, as an accusion that THEY are doing XYZ.

Its a sort of mirror dance, where every move of the real person is repeated exactly in the mirror … very foncusing for anyone that doesn’t know who is the real person and who is the man in the mirror*. And once they are thoroughly puzzled, slip in and promise them assurance and certainty from a Brave Maverick Doctor Who Really Cares.

Talking of which, and referring to my previous posting, one of the things most people find terribly hard to believe, is that a Brave Maverick Doctor, who is defying the Establishment on behalf of his poor dying patients, can be seriously rich (unless he inherited the money). How can he be a maverick? Surely mavericks are poor and oppressed? As soon as they see he has earned Big Moola from his medical business, they turn mighty skeptical.

I’d publish things like photos of his house, along with an article about how this BMD, who lives in this humble cottage, is working tirelessly against Big Pharm and the Uncaring Oncological Establishment, to bring a brand new treatment to the desparate dying. A pic tells more than a 1000 words …

*I vaguely remember reading an sf books many years ago, which included such a scene. The hero had to find out which was real and which was reflection, to get through to the next room.

These bloggers have an agenda, and are not open to rational discourse.

[snip]

The fact that most people will basically believe anything they are told without bothering to find out if what they are told is true or not—makes them for easy prey, especially when they are dying of cancer

.

Irony is dead. The funeral will be on Thursday, and in lieu of flowers it is requested that mourners donate to The Skeptics* , so they may continue their dedicated work.

* ‘The Skeptics’ are the online volunteer division of PSAMI, Pharma Shills and Minions International. Your kind donations are used to support and incentivise them as they harass and hound Brave Maverick Doctors worldwide.

Donate now and receive a free bottle of Mercolaway, the #1 Woo Wiper.

On a serious note, Dr Gorski – I don’t care if you write about Count Stan every time you’re scheduled here, I can certainly think of more objectionable content. If your work (and that of the rest of The Skeptics) keeps just one child out of p¡ss-infusion hell, then the world is instantly a better place. People who would be otherwise susceptible to the sciencebabble around ANPs need people like you to go into great detail about why, and how, Burzynski is hiding the truth.

Lay people need to know that his grand statements are easily debunked, that the phrase “published clinical trials” has a very specific meaning, to be shown that the “clinic” seems to follow a set script about tumours “breaking up” and labelling any neurological or physical deterioration as “a sign of real progress”, even as patients lie dying. at home.

Keep up the great work.