Although I admit it’s the topic of this particular post, those criticising the Burzynski clinic (including Rhys) have discussed much more than the hysterical libel threats.

Further issues include:

- A startling lack of evidence of efficacy of antineoplastons as an effective treatment for any form of cancer (or any other condition Burzynski has claimed they can treat – such as AIDS and Alzheimers). This is despite over 35 years of ‘research’. For this reason, any hope invested in this treatment is likely to be false hope. If Dr Burzynski is a genius, as you claim, and if he is sometimes able to cure cancer, as you claim, then (as Rhys has written in another post), it is morally reprehensible of Dr Burzynski to fail to share his data.

- Serious side effects of antineoplastons – which are described as ‘nontoxic’ by supporters of the clinic (including the Burzynski Patient Group).

- Various examples of bending and breaking laws – which could ultimately result in loss of Burzynski’s licence to practise.

-Using patients and their families to promote the clinic (via public fundraising campaigns reported in national media) while also charging them hundreds of thousands of pounds/dollars. There are several examples of patients *still* (effectively) promoting the Burzynski clinic after they have died (on the Burzynski Patient Group and Setting Them Free websites).

-Several examples of patients being given unrealistically optimistic advice in contrast to advice from other clinics. For example, misreading MRI scans.

I could elaborate and I could list yet more problems but I only have limited time.

There’s much more here: http://josephinejones.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/burzynski-blogs-my-master-list/

What? Collecting money from cancer victims so they can particpate in what he claims to be clinical trials simply means he is collecting money from cancer victims so they can particpate in what he claims to be clinical trials.

Taking money from people certainly does not prove you’re not offering them false hope. Ever heard of conmen? Fraud?

“It’s a shame you all concentrate on the “ahh they threatened me” bullshit”
Nope, we – hundreds of us – have concentrated on the facts, especially as pertains to evidence of effectiveness of these “antineoplastons”. Or rather, the lack of any evidence of their benefit, with some clear evidence for their toxicity.

Nice job!!

My wife and I share your concerns about the Welsh Baccalaureate (WBQ) Advanced as we have a son in Year 13 at Llanishen High who hopes to go on to study Geography at Lancaster University this autumn. He is doing three A levels – Geography, History & Chemistry – in addition to the mandatory WBQ.

In its present form, the WBQ is an impediment to those students with the ability and desire to study at the best universities.
The WBQ Organisation tells us that the Advanced level qualification is “welcomed by the majority of institutions”
(http://www.wbq.org.uk/eng/wbq-home-2010/wbq_2010_home/wbq-moreforhe.htm), but seeing as there are 119 universities in the UK
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/table/2011/may/17/university-league-table-2012), it would be a majority if only sixty accepted it. I wonder what is the true figure?
The WBQ Organisation also tells us that the “issue seems to be impacting on a minority of universities at the moment, commonly known as the Russell Group” (email from Ross Thomas, WBQ Development Officer, 20mar12), but this group of twenty universities all happen to be in the top fifty in the UK (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/table/2011/may/17/university-league-table-2012) and they are not the only ones (in the top 50) ‘rejecting’ the WBQ; this makes it very significant.
The fact is, any Welsh student wishing to study at one of the UK’s better universities will likely find that the WBQ is not accepted as part of the conditional offer; in the best case, it will probably only be taken into consideration if the student (narrowly) fails to make the required A level grades.

Now, I have nothing against the WBQ in principle: I happen to think that it is a commendable initiative to have a broader based (A-level-type) qualification and I am sure that it is of great benefit to many students. Unfortunately, in its present form, it does not serve the needs of all students and, until this is rectified, there should be a means for such students to opt out of the WBQ (if so desired), so that they can concentrate on those A levels that will get them where they want to go.
In my son’s case, Lancaster University (who are in the top ten) have this year decided that they will no longer accept the Welsh Baccalaureate and – though he has been consistently tipped by his teachers to be a ‘top’ student – it is now unlikely that he will make the grades demanded in their conditional offer; Lancaster will only take the WBQ Advanced into
consideration “should the conditional offer be narrowly missed” (their words).
Further, according to an article in TES Magazine titled ‘Schools see benefit of Welsh Bac as A-level grades falter’ (http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6110642), it appears that my son is not the only to get lower than expected grades. Dated 2-Sep-11, the opening paragraph states: “The value of the Welsh Baccalaureate has come under intense scrutiny in recent weeks after figures revealed a decline in the number of students gaining top A-level grades.” Is this just a coincidence, or is the WBQ Advanced really having a measurable, adverse affect on students’ other grades? The next set of A level results in August should shed more light and definite action needs to be taken if this trend is confirmed.

As parents, my wife and I find it galling to have our son spend a substantial part of his time studying a qualification that is of marginal use in getting him to the university of his choice; time that could have been better spent working on his (other) A levels, if only he had the choice. I am sure there are many other parents who feel the same.
Had we known two years ago what we know now, we would have sought to remove our son from the WBQ: initially, we would have tried to do this in cooperation with the school; failing that, we would have taken legal advice; in short, we would have used whatever means possible to prevent/minimise his involvement with the WBQ. We have therefore made our views known to the WBQ Organisation, Llanishen High and our local Welsh Assembly Member, requesting that an ‘opt out’ clause be put in place. Unfortunately, our concerns are too late to help our son, but hopefully they can help others following-on.
Incidentally, we recently heard of a pupil at another Cardiff secondary school who (with the backing of his parents) has informed the school that he will refuse to partake in the WBQ when he starts his A levels this autumn; will be interesting to see what happens there.

My advice to you depends on whether you think continuing to study the WBQ will adversely affect your (other) A level grades to the point that you will not be able to get in to the university of your choice: if the answer is ‘no’, then I suggest you just get on with it by doing the minimum possible; if the answer is ‘yes’, then you need to ‘fight’ it and I hope your parents will support you in this.

One last thing: my wife accompanied my son to a recent Open Day at Lancaster and met two parents (from Rhyl & Llandudno) who said their children were not studying the WBQ. Unfortunately, my wife did not take any details, but it appears that the Welsh Assembly Government is using a different definition of ‘compulsory’ to the one we are used to. My wife tried to raise this issue with a certain Julian Pritchard (who I believe works in the Welsh Assembly Government Department for Children, Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills), but he was openly dismissive, simply re-iterating that the WBQ Advanced was ‘compulsory’ for all A level students in Wales; I have mentioned this to our AM in the hope she can shed some light.

Feel free to contact me if you so wish.

All the best,
Nick.

They don’t give hope. They sell it for a substantial profit, knowing that there is nothing to substantiate it.

How do you know that? Are you psychic?

“Chemotherapy only works in 3% of cases and it isn’t cheap either!”

Anti-neoplaston therapy is chemotherapy – the only difference is that it’s untested, and that unlike ethical doctors, Dr. B has no qualms about charging people for the privilege of being his guinea pigs.