Aids HIV FAQ

Burzynski loses appeal

Question:

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Texas upheld the license suspension conditions imposed on Burzynski by that states Medical Board, which had been overturned by the district court. District Judge Sam Lake has also disallowed Burzynski to dispense antineoplastons to out of state patients – since 250 of the 280 patients that clinic now treats are from out of state, the clinic might close. I’ll post more when I have more details. sdb —

Response:

   The Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Texas upheld the license    suspension conditions imposed on Burzynski by that states Medical    Board, which had been overturned by the district court.    District Judge Sam Lake has also disallowed Burzynski to dispense    antineoplastons to out of state patients – since 250 of the 280    patients that clinic now treats are from out of state, the clinic    might close. It certainly is a sad day for America when scientific questions that should be judged on their merits are instead decided in courts of law. I wonder why people who would never think that the government should say what kind of books you should read or what kind of church you should attend think it is OK for the government to tell you what kind of medical treatment you can get. — http://ra.stsci.edu/bps/top.html   CDBS rewrite: Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Response:

> It certainly is a sad day for America when scientific questions that > should be judged on their merits are instead decided in courts of > law.

I’m astonished that you would say this Bernie! You’re a member of several organizations that support political action in preference to science and you are constantly mouthing their party line.  You and your fellows have supported legislation that has weakened consumer protection laws precisely in the area of health providers who *can’t* pass scientific muster. You don’t give a fig for either science or the truth and you never have. > I wonder why people who would never think that the government > should say what kind of books you should read or what kind of church > you should attend think it is OK for the government to tell you what > kind of medical treatment you can get.

Nonsense. The laws allow for new drugs and Burzynski could be practicing within the law today if he could have proved — scientifically — efficacy and safety.  The `evil government’ gave him over 30 years to do it and in the process he became a very wealthy man and took money from many people, all of whom he has survived.  He manipulated the system very cleverly and it’s well past time that he should be put out of business. But please, feel free to demonstrate your devotion to science by delineating the pharmacologic and medical reasons that Burzynski’s drugs should be administered for cancer and aids. sdb —

Response:

   > It certainly is a sad day for America when scientific questions that    > should be judged on their merits are instead decided in courts of    > law.    I’m astonished that you would say this Bernie! You’re a member of    several organizations that support political action in preference to    science and you are constantly mouthing their party line.  You and    your fellows have supported legislation that has weakened consumer    protection laws precisely in the area of health providers who *can’t*    pass scientific muster. You don’t give a fig for either science or the    truth and you never have. For the record, the National Center for Homeopathy is an educational organization and does no political lobbying. No doubt you are referring to the changes in the medical practice acts which prevent doctors from being disciplined for alternative medical practices unless it can be shown that the practices harm the patient. These changes have recently been made in several states including North Carolina and New York. I support these changes, because it removes a weapon that the NCHAF and its allies have used to harrass and intimidate alternative practitioners in the past. Once use of alternative medicine is no longer a legal issue, it can become the strictly scientific issue it should have been in the first place. Then the various disputants can try to convince each other by force of reason instead of force of law.    > I wonder why people who would never think that the government    > should say what kind of books you should read or what kind of church    > you should attend think it is OK for the government to tell you what    > kind of medical treatment you can get.    Feel free to demonstrate your devotion to science by    delineating the pharmacologic and medical reasons that Burzynski’s    drugs should be administered for cancer and aids. People should have the choice to seek out any sort of medical treatment they desire, whether scientifically validated or not. Why vest the power to decide what medical treatments are allowed in a medical board that cares more for protecting the guild of medical practitioners than it does for protecting the general public? This is quite clearly seen by the fact that medical are very lax in disciplining incompetent and drug addicted doctors. I feel instead that intelligent adults can make decisions on their medical care themselves and are more motivated to protect their own health and well being than any medical board. — http://ra.stsci.edu/bps/top.html   CDBS rewrite: Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > For the record, the National Center for Homeopathy is an educational > organization and does no political lobbying. No doubt you are > referring to the changes in the medical practice acts which prevent > doctors from being disciplined for alternative medical practices > unless it can be shown that the practices harm the patient. These > changes have recently been made in several states including North > Carolina and New York. I support these changes, because it removes a > weapon that the NCHAF and its allies have used to harrass and > intimidate alternative practitioners in the past. Once use of > alternative medicine is no longer a legal issue, it can become the > strictly scientific issue it should have been in the first place. Then > the various disputants can try to convince each other by force of > reason instead of force of law.

My, what a verbose response. In other words, yes you are a member of groups that favor political action to protect alternative practitioners and you toe their particular party line. >    Feel free to demonstrate your devotion to science by >    delineating the pharmacologic and medical reasons that Burzynski’s >    drugs should be administered for cancer and aids. > People should have the choice to seek out any sort of medical > treatment they desire, whether scientifically validated or not. Why > vest the power to decide what medical treatments are allowed in a > medical board that cares more for protecting the guild of medical > practitioners than it does for protecting the general public? This is > quite clearly seen by the fact that medical are very lax in > disciplining incompetent and drug addicted doctors. I feel instead > that intelligent adults can make decisions on their medical care > themselves and are more motivated to protect their own health and well > being than any medical board.

Well, I invited you to discuss the science involved. You proceed to confirm my charge that neither the scientific validity or the truth matter to you by not bothering to discuss the science involved. I realize that all you care about is that people are allowed to practice whatever they want without governmental interference.  I also recognize that a minority of Americans share this opinion, but frankly Bernard this is not the proper group to discuss it in – I’ll just respectfully request that you place all follow-ups that involve the off charter topic of medical politics in the talk.politics.medicine group and leave us alone here to discuss alternative medicine. Thanks, sdb —

Response:

> My, what a verbose response. In other words, yes you are a member of > groups that favor political action to protect alternative > practitioners and you toe their particular party line.

Wow, what a coincidence Scott!  You are a member of a group that favors political action to protect non-alternative pratitioners and you toe to their particular party line… The National Coalition Against Health Fraud. Jeez, you are like the pot calling the kettle black!

Response:

>  The National Coalition Against Health Fraud. > Jeez, you are like the pot calling the kettle black!

I am not a member of that group. sdb —

Response:

Filed under: Aids