A little bit more shameless self-promotion in the service of an important message about Stanislaw Burzynski

As regular readers know, I was quite happy that Skeptical Inquirer (SI) agreed to publish articles by Bob Blaskiewicz and myself about the highly dubious cancer doctor in Houston known as Stanislaw Burzynski. Indeed, Bob and I have been busily doing our best to promote it, appearing on various podcasts, including Point of Inquiry and, most recently, The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, where once again we've called on skeptics to help us put pressure on our elected officials to prevent Dr. Burzynski from continuing to take advantage of desperate cancer patients, many with incurable disease, particularly incurable brain cancers. It's in this spirit that I write this uncharacteristically brief post.

My only disappointment thus far was that SI is still largely print-only, which meant that I could only expose our article to subscribers and urge nonsubscribers to pick up a copy (which, by the way, you can still do, as I believe the issue with Bob's and my articles is still on the stands). Given that my article was designed to be a primer on Stanislaw Burzynski for skeptics, while Bob's article was intended to make suggestions about what you as supporters of science-based medicine can do to try to protect cancer patients, I'm now happy to announce that SI has published both of our articles online:

Read. Learn. Enjoy. Comment. And thanks to Frazier Kendrick and all the kind folks at SI for publishing our articles online as early as they could.

Thus enlightened and fortified with knowledge, then head on over to thehoustoncancerquack.com to find out what more you can do to help. Bob also has a Change.org petition. As I mentioned not too long ago, I'll be in Darrell Issa's neck of the woods in San Diego from April 5 to 9, where hopefully I'll get to meet with some of the skeptics there to help in any way I can while I'm not attending the AACR meeting.

Finally, another reason why I'm happy that these articles have been published online is because it allows my readers who don't subscribe to SI to have a chance to read them. It also gives you a chance to comment on them, and I hope you'll do so below.

More like this

Weekends seem to be the time for shameless self-promotion. At least, some weekends are. So, in that tradition, I can't help but blowing my own horn a bit and urging my readers to head on over to listen to The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, Episode #455, March 29, 2014. There, Bob Blaskiewicz and…
I don't normally ask you, my readers for much, if anything, other than to read and for the subset of you who like to be active in the comments to have at it and, if so inclined, to cover my back by swatting down the trolls, quacks, and antivaccinationists who occasionally show up to infest the…
Today's post will be relatively brief (for an Orac post, that is). The reason is that it's some very sad news that depresses me greatly. It's also because I don't want to distract too much from the announcement I'd like to highlight. About a month and a half ago, around the same time that Stanislaw…
One common theme that has been revisited time and time again on this blog since its very founding is the problem of how science and medicine are reported. For example, back when I first started blogging, one thing that used to drive me absolutely bonkers was the tendency of the press to include in…

I thought they were great.

By Bob Blaskiewicz (not verified) on 03 Apr 2014 #permalink

Well Bob, of course you did :)

I have been following the saga through Orac's posts for ages. I hope to see some spirited commenting on the other side with enlightenment possibilities.

I subscribe to the Si, awesome articles. I signed the petition and donated to the worthy cause to put this charlatan out of business. I say we bring back taring, feathering and riding him out of town on a rail!

By oldmanjenkins38 (not verified) on 03 Apr 2014 #permalink

Most excellent work, gentlemen.
Even though I know the story well, others don't.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 03 Apr 2014 #permalink

Kudos to CSI for putting it on this side of the paywall. Now I can send a link to my friends in Houston.

By Shwell Thanksh (not verified) on 05 Apr 2014 #permalink

"While it must be conceded that it is possible that in some patients ANPs might exhibit antitumor effects"

If a patient asked you whether there's a chance that ANPs work, would you phrase this the same way? It seems to me that most desperate patients would take that answer and think, "AHA! So there IS a chance! By gum, I'll take it!"

If nothing else, I want my healthcare providers to be precise, so I appreciate that you have to acknowledge that there might be a chance ANPs work, since there is no published definitive evidence that they don't. But if I understand what you've been writing about Burzynski correctly, essentially, there's no chance ANPs will work, and it's certainly not worth the effort (regardless of whether patients get ANPs from Burzynski's clinic or elsewhere). Do I have this right?

By Xplodyncow (not verified) on 06 Apr 2014 #permalink

@explodyncow (love your nym BTW) yes, yes you do.

Sort of on topic,a beautiful little girl has died of cancer.
http://msn.foxsports.com/detroit/story/cancer-claims-8-year-old-princes…

I haven't researched the details, but her odds were probably not good.
But, instead of wasting a huge amount of money on a probably futile "experimental" treatment, she and her family found a way to fill her last months with special joy, inspire a college basketball team, and leave a special memory for thousands.

R.I.P. Lacey Holsworth

Also, the basketball dunk video on the page is great.

By squirrelelite (not verified) on 09 Apr 2014 #permalink