We are familiar with Christian TV channels peddling the anti-science, anti-intellectual nonsense of Young Earth Creationism but every now and then they stray into the realm of medicine and healing with toxic results.

Revelation TV is another Christian channel broadcasting in the UK on the Sky platform which has an interesting history of Ofcom involvement. On a number of occasions the channel was in breach of Ofcom rules with regard to their views on homosexuality, Islam and abortion. In order to escape Ofcom’s ‘censorship’ Revelation TV is now has a Spanish broadcasting licence which seemingly allows it to disseminate its prejudices without the hindrance of being fair and even-handed. Most of Revelation TV’s output is centred around creationism, end times prophecies and readings from the bible and the Daily Mail, but recently they have have been devoting time to the importance of fasting. One of the presenters, Gordon Pettie, is the movimg force behind this shift of emphasis and takes every opportunity to promote fasting (and a book he has written on the subject). He is an enthusiastic advocate of the “Daniel Fast”.

The Daniel Fast is a biblically based partial fast. It is a method of fasting that men, women and young people all over the world are using as they enter into the spiritual discipline of prayer and fasting. (daniel-fast.com)

This fast is based on the supposed diet of the prophet Daniel, though why the eating habits of Bronze Age dwellers with a life expectancy of about thirty years is relevant to modern day life is never made clear. Gordon Pettie generally emphasises the ‘spiritual’ benefits of fasting but recently featured an interview with a guest who was keen to promote the health benefits of fasting.

The guest was introduced as the ‘Rev. Dr. Felicity Corbin Wheeler’. First of all take note of her titles, a reverend and a doctor. Josephine Jones has blogged about the tendency of alternative health practioners to try and enhance their credibility by using the title ‘Dr’. (Josephine Jones Blog) An examination of the reverend doctor’s website doesn’t shed much light on how she earned the right to style herself in such an impressive manner. Her Linkedin profile is more revealing. Under ‘education’ she lists the Hippocrates Health Institute and the Institute of Optimum Nutrition. She is a Doctor of Divinty but the name of the awarding body isn’t mentioned. The red flags are being unfurled! The reverend doctor’s medical credentials seem to be limited to her experience as a Red Cross nurse, her training at the Hippocrates Health Institute ( cell physiology, molecular biology, nutritional biochemistry, clinical ecology and quantum physics), and membership of the Royal Society of Medicine. Anyone who is impressed by someone who is a member of the Royal Society of Medicine should read Andy Lewis’s blog (Quackometer).

Despite the reverend doctor’s scientific shortcomings, she doesn’t hold back from offering medical advice, both on her website and in her interview on Revelation TV. She unashamedly promotes the use of wheatgrass as a source of laetrile (also referred to as vitamin B17) which, she claims, can cure cancer.

Cancer is a nutritional deficiency disease, like scurvy or pellagra.   It is not caused by bacterium, a virus or a mysterious toxin, but by the absence of a substance that we have removed from our diet.   That substance is vitamin B17, derived from the seeds and living enzymes in the fresh raw vegetables, fruit and plants God tells us to eat in Genesis. (My Healing)

The claims made for laetrile have been thoroughly researched and comprehensively dismissed.

The claims that laetrile or amygdalin have beneficial effects for cancer patients are not currently supported by sound clinical data. There is a considerable risk of serious adverse effects from cyanide poisoning after laetrile or amygdalin, especially after oral ingestion. The risk-benefit balance of laetrile or amygdalin as a treatment for cancer is therefore unambiguously negative. (Laetrile treatment for cancer)

Not only is it ineffective, it is dangerous. Gordon Pettie of Revelation TV promised viewers that Felicity Corbin Wheeler would have her own half hour show sometime in the near future. Perhaps Revelation TV need reminding of their responsibilities:

Ofcom Rule 4.6: Religious programmes must not improperly exploit any susceptibilities of the audience.

Perhaps they also need to be aware of the Cancer Act 1939.

In the skeptic community, the term ‘red flag’ is used to denote something which gives cause for alarm, a warning sign that things may not be what they seem. Science-org presents a useful guide to red flags as applied to Quackery. Note that of the sixteen featured, Burzynski has one all to himself. Short and Spiky takes it one stage further and devotes an entire blog post to the red flags raised by the Burzynski Clinic.

The shortcomings, ethical,medical and financial, of Stanislav Burzynski and his clinic, have been extensively blogged and tweeted ever since the Observer published an article about a family in the UK raising money to send their daughter for treatment to the Burzynski Clinic. This was followed by  an article in the London Evening Standard  and a feature on ITV’s Daybreak programme seemingly endorsing the work of Burzynski. Anyone wishing to follow the timeline of events should go to Joesphine Jones excellent blog which has a record of posts and blogs about the issues.

Burzynski has been in business for almost thirty years. During that time he has had a number of run-ins with the authorities but nothing has stopped him exploiting the sick and vulnerable. Until now. Andy Lewis has revealed that a former patient of the Burzynski Clinic is sueing Burzynski for, amongst other things, “bilking her of nearly $100 000″. The Courthouse News Service gives further details about the nature of the former patient’s complaints and Peter Bowditch has posted the court filing on his site. These documents make horrendous reading and justify all the red flags raised by bloggers and tweeters over the last few months.

Can Burzynski survive? Burzynski is a last resort for the desperate and vulnerable who may not be influenced by the proceedings in a Texas Courtroom. They may be unaware of what is happening. We cannot be confident that the Observer, Evening Standard and Dr Hilary Jones will give the publicity to these latest developments that they gave to the ‘pioneering researcher’. Burzynski is due to appear in front of the Texas Medical Board in April 2012 and hopefully that will seal his fate.

Edit.

The submission to the Leveson Inquiry on theCulture, Practice Ethics of the Press by the Association of Medical Research Charities, Cancer Research UK and the Wellcome Trust contains the following paragraph:

10. Secondly, and more worryingly, it can often raise false hope among patients. This is particularly true and damaging where it concerns treatments for incurable diseases that are not proven, yet which are portrayed as “miracle cures”. This can lead patients to spend life savings on treatments that are most unlikely to work, or on occasion to eschew the most effective known therapies in favour of alternatives that are untested or disproved.

Observer, Evening Standard and Dr Hilary Jones – please take note.

This cartoon appeared on the Facebook page of University College London Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society advertising a pub social. Some people found it offensive and complained to the Students’ Union. The Union responded by asking the atheist society to remove the cartoon. You can read the full story here. This in turn provoked a response from many skeptics and bloggers including Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers, who came to the defence of the atheist society and free speech.

It doesn’t end there. Rhys Morgan has written about the Jesus and Mo affair in his blog. If you follow the link you will see that what he has written has resulted in a flood of threats and abuse from those who feel that their religion has been affronted. For the most part those who wrote those comments are revealed to be ignorant, illiterate bullies barely capable of stringing two words together much less making a coherent  argument explaining their position. Their case seems to be, “I am offended by the cartoon. Remove it because I say so.”

I am offended.

• I am offended by their wilful ignorance and stupidity.
• I am offended by their assumption that they are entitled to force their religious views on me.
• I am offended by their wish to censor what I can read and what I can think.
• I am offended by their attempts to drag this country back to the Dark Ages.
• I am offended by their readiness to resort to threats and violence.
• I am offended by their refusal to recognise that their behaviour is unacceptable in a modern, democratic society.

Worryingly, this sort of response doesn’t seem to be unusual. A proposed talk about Sharia law and human rights had to be abandoned after threats of violence.

If anyone reading this is offended by what I have written, what follows is especially for you.

I am left wondering what messages this interview sends out to viewers, some of whom will know of cancer sufferers. My conclusions are:

•  a treatment which is not available in the UK must be a treatment worth having.
•  a treatment which is ‘pioneering’ and ‘experimental’ is a treatment worth having.
•  a treatment which is not validated by the relevant medical authorities is a treatment worth having.
•  a treatment which demands enormous personal and financial sacrifices is a treatment worth having.
•  parents are entitled to try anything possible to find a cure for their children.

I believe none of these stand up to close scrutiny.

In my view Dr Jones has done a disservice to the sufferers of cancer and their friends and relatives. It isn’t surprising when parents have an emotional response to the situation they find themselves in. It isn’t surprising when the media use that emotional response to produce a piece which will grab the attention of viewers/readers.

I find it surprising that a doctor should do no more than amplify that response to the exclusion of all else. Readers of this and other blogs and followers of #Burzynski on Twitter will be well aware of the issues surrounding this ‘pioneering’ and ‘experimental’ treatment. If you need further information follow these links:

Quackometer – Dr Hilary Jones Promotes Questionable Burzynski Clinic on TV

Josephine Jones – Dear Evening Standard, it is immoral to promote the Burzynski Clinic

The 21st Floor – Burzynski: A Small Victory

Thank you for your email. I have examined this issue closely and have
written a column on it for Sunday. Thank you for taking the trouble to
write.

Best wishes,
Stephen Pritchard
Readers’ editor
The Observer

Why this feeble response from the Observer? It is a newspaper with a long tradition of campaigning journalism and is the oldest Sunday newspaper in the world. Along with its sister newspaper The Guardian, it has been involved in covering controversial issues such as wikileaks and phone hacking. The Burzynski Clinic would appear to be the sort of issue that the Observer/Guardian would relish covering. It has all the ingredients for an in-depth investigation.

• highly suspect science and dubious medical procedures
• exploitation of vulnerable families
• unreasonable financial costs
• threatening emails to bloggers
• attempts to limit freedom of speech

The hard work has been done for the scientifically challenged. The Josephine Jones blog has a handy list of useful sites. Yet still the Observer/Guardian sees no evil and reports no evil.

Does the reluctance of the Observer to become involved result from its inglorious past in reporting scientific controversies? They made an awful mess when reporting supposed links between autism and the MMR vaccine. Ben Goldacre takes them to task here. (The original Observer article has been removed from their archive). Perhaps the bruising they took over that issue has conditioned them to avoid the scientific arena. In today’s Guardian there is a small article featuring Rhys Morgan, one of the bloggers who has been on the receiving ends of threats from the Burzynski Clinic. It has taken over a week for the Observer/Guardian to recognise the existence of a controversy which they themselves initiated.

What a strange state of affairs. The newspaper I’ve read for forty years ignores a big issue happening on it’s own doorstep. The editorial staff would do well to take a look across the Atlantic and see how it should be done.

Update
Rhys Morgan now has a page on the Guardian’s Comment is Free. One comment sums up my position perfectly:

Excellent work, Rhys. Now let us hope our professional journalists get off their collective backsides, rather than allowing the science blogosphere to do all the lifting and carrying (and the receiving of frankly sinister threats from this organisation). If Burzynski has nothing to hide, let him come forward with the complete data for peer review into the efficacy of the treatment his ‘clinic’ offers.

As I wrote to you last week, we take the matter very seriously. It is now in the hands of Stephen Pritchard, our readers’ editor, who, I assure you, will examine the issues with great thoroughness.

Best wishes

Obviously this is not the response I was hoping for but I am cautiously optimistic that The Observer will fulfill its obligation to provide even-handed, well informed  journalism. For the moment I will give them the benefit of the doubt. I hope my optimism is not misplaced.

Meanwhile, anyone who has not read Rhys Morgan’s blog , “Threats from the Burzynski Clinic“, should follow the link. He details the threats he has received from Mr Marc Stephens, a spokesman for the Burzynski Clinic. Rhys asks for the support of bloggers and tweeters. If you are in a position to help, please do so.

Thank you for publishing my letter regarding the Observer article on the Burzynski Clinic. I am grateful that you gave me the opportunity to raise some of my concerns regarding this organisation. However I am compelled to draw your attention to my concern about the level of the Observer’s response to the issues raised. You cannot be unaware of the ongoing debates on Twitter and in the blogosphere about the Burzynski Clinic. As well as consideration of the medical and ethical issues involved, some of this debate is about the responsibility of the Observer to redress the balance with regard to this matter. There is a perception that the Observer, albeit unwittingly, has given a validity and respectability to an organisation which is exploiting the vulnerable. Many individuals have contacted the Observer expressing their concern, but the printing of one letter does not reflect the disquiet felt amongst the skeptical community. Should you wish to have some measure of this disquiet I can refer you to the excellent blog of Josephine Jones who is maintaining a list of all blogs dealing with this matter. Andy Lewis, Ben Goldacre and David Colquhoun  have all made eloquent and persuasive contributions which deserve wider dissemination.

I am still hopeful that the Observer will fulfil what I believe to be its responsibility for providing its readership with an informed and balanced view of the issues raised in the original article.

Mike Warren

Received this evening, 25.11.2011, 7.45 pm.

Dear Mr Warren

I have been passed the letter you wrote to the Reader’s Editor re. the Burzynski Clinic. We are carrying out furher research into the story and the clinic.

In the meantime, I wondered if you would be interested in having your letter published on our Letters page?

We never run notes sent to the ‘reader’ email as letters before asking the writer.

Best wishes

Robert Yates
Assistant Editor
The Observer

I have had the Observer delivered each Sunday for some forty years and therefore feel entitled to describe myself as a loyal reader. I was concerned to see the article entitled, ‘The worst year of my life: cancer has my family in its grip’ in the 20th November edition. It is entirely appropriate for you to raise awareness of the dilemmas faced by the families of young children suffering from life-threatening conditions such as Billie Bainbridge. What concerns me is the way in which the article appears to give uncritical support to the treatment offered by the Burzynski Clinic. There is much evidence to suggest that this clinic operates on the fringes of medical practice and does little more than offer false hope at a high price. A look at the Cancer Research UK website would have confirmed this. I fear that the consequences of this article will be to raise unrealistic expectations in other cancer sufferers and their families and line the pockets of charlatans. I look to the Observer to provide balanced and informed articles. I hope therefore, that a future edition of the paper will address the issues I have raised.

The issues raised in this article were brought to my attention by Le Canard Noir and has provoked a good number of blog posts. Anarchic Teapot has listed many of these on his site and Josephine Jones is keeping tabs on new blogs.

Over at The 21st Floor there is an online petition calling on the Burzynski Clinic to release its data.