Burzynski The Movie
June 14, 2011 11:50 AM   Subscribe

Burzynski, the Movie is the story of a medical doctor and Ph.D biochemist named Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski who won the largest, and possibly the most convoluted and intriguing legal battle against the Food & Drug Administration in American history.
A documentary by Eric Merola.
posted by xmattxfx (12 comments total) 5 users marked this as a favorite
Quackwatch on Burzynski.
posted by ardgedee at 11:55 AM on June 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

The current Wikipedia page doesn't mention winning anything against the FDA, and Google searches turn up questionable cancer-related websites and forums. Can anyone provide more information?
posted by filthy light thief at 12:06 PM on June 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Limits Placed on Burzynski's Cancer Treatment, a news release from the Texas Attorney General's Office, dated February 10, 1998, with some (older) history of claims and lawsuits in Texas.

An interview with Dr. Burzynski, who clarifies that his Polish degree is like a Ph. D. in the US, and that some misinformation about his Polish medical school history was obtained from "key communist figures" at his Polish school. Note, it's a site in support of Burzynski.
posted by filthy light thief at 12:19 PM on June 14, 2011

The Quackwatch page is authored by Dr. Green. Burzynski claims that Green worked for Aetna, an insurance company that sued Burzynski.
posted by wuwei at 12:36 PM on June 14, 2011

Perhaps they sued him because they believed him to be a quack?
posted by Bovine Love at 12:40 PM on June 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

According to this his clinic charges $20,000 a month. And he damns the evil pharmaceutical companies for their greed.
Quack is a polite word. He comes across as evil.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 12:45 PM on June 14, 2011

Infomercials are documentaries now?
posted by Brocktoon at 12:47 PM on June 14, 2011

Infomercials are documentaries now?

Most documentaries are pushing some sort of position. It's not a huge leap from:

"This is a horrible practice" without showing reasonable arguments for the practice, should they exist;

to "this is a very good artist" without featuring experts who think that the artist in question is crap;

to "the Shake Weight totally rocks, dude!" and excluding people who bought it and felt stupid.
posted by Mayor Curley at 1:04 PM on June 14, 2011

The antineoplaston wiki page has a more detailed debunking of antineoplastons.

The guy has a ton of phase II studies registered at clinicaltrials.gov. The link above explains why:
Treatment is offered by Burzynski only at the Burzynski Clinic in West Houston, Texas. Since antineoplastons are not licensed as treatments for any disease, Burzynski can only sell his products as part of clinical trials. Patients receiving cancer treatment with antineoplastons must therefore first qualify for one of the currently available clinical trials. In order to qualify for most of the trials, a patient must have first failed standard treatment for the condition being treated, or it must be a condition that is unlikely to respond to currently available therapy and for which no curative therapy exists.
So he's charging patients and pretending it's part of a never-ending series of Phase II trials, it seems, to avoid getting prosecuted for prescribing unapproved drugs (note: you should never be charged for care in a clinical trial). He has a crapload of "Unknown status" studies which indicates they haven't updated the FDA in more than two years.
posted by benzenedream at 1:18 PM on June 14, 2011 [6 favorites]

Thanks, benzenedream. I was actually wondering about that part.
posted by infinitywaltz at 1:21 PM on June 14, 2011

I was going to point out that the readout in a phase II trial is not the same as a phase III, so the "proven effecacy cited on the wikipedia page might not mean what you think it means. In light of benzenedream's comment, though, I realize I've already summed up my feelings on this issue.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 2:02 PM on June 14, 2011

Most documentaries are pushing some sort of position.

That's a stretch, don't you think? This "movie" is designed and produced to sell a product or service. Ken Burn's Baseball does not.
posted by Brocktoon at 7:14 PM on June 14, 2011

« Older Fun in the wind tunnel   |   What to watch when you've finished running through... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments