Do not eat this (Image via Wikipedia)
A high-concentration troll was detected commenting on my 22 Nov 2011 post entitled Burzynski: piss-poor cancer therapy at a hefty price. In my opinion, the sheer enormity of what was being stated merits dissection in a separate post. Here it is. I’ll split the comments up to answer each point/misstatement individually, otherwise the whole thing will be completely unreadable.
So your criticism of Dr Burzynski’s therapy amounts to 1) if it sounds too good to be true, it must be, and 2) if it sounds really weird (it comes from pee? ewww) it must be worthless.
Both statements are incorrect: I stated that if it sounds too good to be true, it almost certainly is. I do not comment on the weirdness or otherwise of the therapy, even if I do get a couple of cheap jokes out of it; my concern is entirely with the fact that there is no proof it works. Original reply: “You grossly misrepresent my arguments, and have missed other quackery warning signs, including the total lack of evidence or verified results.”
While these are pretty good common-sense maxims, they aren’t infallible standards by which to judge a therapy. Sometimes simple things, even gross things, really are insanely beneficial especially when compared to the pharmaceutical model we’re used to.
Absolutely. So we both understand these simple, beneficial things to be: eat a varied diet without excess, exercise regularly, avoid harmful substances like tobacco and drugs, practise safe sex, and so on?
Vitamin D is many times more effective than flu vaccine in preventing the flu, and our skin makes it for free from sunlight. A super effective method of flu prevention that costs absolutely nothing? Sounds too good to be true–but in this case, it is.
That is because it is too good to be true. In fact, my comment in answer to this assertion was “As for Vitamin D, studies have indicated that it may help to ward off diseases such as influenza during the winter, when levels may be lower because of the lack of sunshine. It does not prevent the flu. No study has indicated it could *replace* vaccination. Complement, maybe. Vaccinate (I meant replace): no.”
Magic mushrooms grow out of cow poop and produce toxicity-indicative hallucinations, but are also demonstrably effective in curing PTSD and cluster headaches (and there’s a boatload peer-reviewed double-blind clinical data on that).
Presumably you’re referring to psilocybin, which likes rich compost, although I couldn’t see a reference to it growing on cowpats. Incidentally, what is it with this sudden rash of baby words like ‘poop’ and ‘poo’ everywhere? Even real authors use it. The correct, absolutely not scatological, word for cow fæces is cowpat. Having actually lived near farms for much of my life, I can assure you you’d find it hard to pick and consume what does grow on cowpats, because it’s tiny. Studies of the active ingredient are certainly proceeding, although given the reported potential adverse effects (which include anxiety and panic attacks) PTSD seems an unlikely indication to me. Maybe you meant OCD?
Actually, if you want an example of something gross, why not just mention musk and ambergris, both prime ingredients in expensive perfumes? Gross doesn’t bother me. Stupid does. Stop strawmanning with the “gross” rubbish.
If Dr. Burzynski’s therapy is worthless, then why did the US government attempt to patent it?
[Citation needed] That’s a serious accusation, and worth investigating irrespective of whether or not the therapy is worth a monkey’s. You have been served with an official FPI™ order.
Why have his patients outlived their prognosis after conventional therapies failed them?
Why have patients died before even starting therapy, despite their prognosis? There is also the heartbreaking case of the young woman who died on the plane home after being assured by Burzynski’s staff she was fit enough to go back to work. In other words, you are cherry picking. A prognosis is an estimate, which may turn out optimistic or pessimistic. Ask an oncologist, who may also be able to tell you a little more about remission. Lastly, it is not unknown for Burzynski to include chemotherapy in the treatment, unbeknown to patients. This may also prolong survival in some cases.
If you want to convince me he’s selling snake oil, you’re going to need a tougher argument than, “It’s gross and sounds too good to be true.”
Of course I would, but that was neither my argument, nor even part of it. You merely conveniently ignored the rest of the article, where other points were made. On to Part II:
What I’m saying is that “quackery warning signs” and “if it sounds too good to be true” are good flags to encourage more research, but are not in and of themselves enough to discredit a therapy.
Yes, we’d noticed. And I replied to it, but clearly you don’t want to address that.
The results that I have seen are testimonials from actual people who outlived their prognosis after conventional therapies failed to help them.
Testimonials are not proof of an effective therapy. In fact, their very presence is an extremely bad sign for an organisation that is supposed to be carrying out scientifically based drug trials and has yet to publish a single serious study in a single serious professional journal. I am glad these people outlived their prognosis and hope their remaining time was not spent in unnecessary discomfort, nor that their family was left in poverty as a result of these horrifically expensive ‘trials’.
These were people who were going to die anyway, and Dr. Burzynski’s therapies extended their lives by months and years beyond their prognosis.
FPI™ with sodding bells on. This is the sort of thing Burzynski is supposed to be showing in these results we’re all waiting for. Why hasn’t he published, if this is true?
All the “too good to be true” maxims in the world don’t stack up against people who are alive and should be dead.
You are merely appealing to emotion. That is no replacement for solid, scientific proof. I have just this minute read an article where a doctor mentions a cousin given four months to live who refused treatment and nevertheless lived another eight months. Too good to be true? No: prognosis is an average expectation, the rest is the luck of the draw.
As for your semantic nitpicking, what kind of definition of prevention are you using where warding off illness is somehow different from preventing illness?
Well, excuse me for using a dictionary.
Vitamin D enhances innate immunity and the vaccine enhances acquired immunity. If you’re going to declare that enhancing innate immunity doesn’t count as prevention then you’ve lost the plot. There are numerous studies demonstrating the effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation in reducing the occurrence of flu in populations and individuals. (A very recent one – Randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation to prevent seasonal influenza A in schoolchildren, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, May 2010, vol. 91, no. 5, p. 1255-1260) You’re also the one putting words in my mouth – I never said anything about it replacing the flu vaccine, only that it is more effective.
You claimed that taking Vitamin D supplements is “many times more effective” than vaccination. This is, quite simply, untrue. I’m not going to bother with an FPI™ order, because, not to beat about the bush, you can’t.
Allow me to explain:
- Vitamin D does not “enhance innate immunity”; it is required for our immune system to function properly. We get it from various sources and in various forms, the main one being via sunshine. A study of Japanese schoolchildren did indeed indicate that Vitamin D supplements in winter – when sunshine is less available – may help halve influenza infection by bringing resistance up to summertime levels. However, it did not include tests for healthy carriers or mild, unnoticed infections, hence my reserves about using the word ‘prevention’:
- The flu vaccine does not “enhance acquired immunity“, as immunity to rapidly mutating flu viruses is lost from season to season; it provides a measure of protection against the strains expected to be prevalent over the coming winter. The protection is not perfect, being around 60% at worst, but a vaccinated person will not become a healthy carrier.
Now, here’s the clever bit: that Japanese study suggests the incidence of influenza may – with caveats – be reduced by “up to half”, i.e. 50%. 50% at best is not “many times more effective” than 60% at worst. By all means take Vitamin D supplements if your winter diet doesn’t include enough fish, dairy products, eggs and artificially-enhanced foods, e.g. breakfast cereals.
Just don’t imagine for a second it’s better than getting the shot.
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
Over at DoubleXScience, the frankly amazing Emily Willingham has posted a list of questions you should always ask yourself when unsure whether what’s in front of you is likely to contain any scientific basis whatsoever. The full article, which I urge you to read, contains an explanation of the thinking behind each question.
