A cancer clinic in Houston, Texas run by a guy called Stanislav Burzynski has received a fair amount of publicity recently, all of it negative. Burzynski specialises in “treating” brain (and a few other)cancers with his urine-derived, unproven and untested beyond Phase II trials “antineoplastons”.
So today I noticed a post on this site, where the author, while listing a sad obituary of all the patients that died despite Burzynski’s supposed miracle cure, asked for information regarding an Australian neurosurgeon by the name of Charles Teo, and when I looked into this a bit, it turned out that there is indeed a connection, and a disturbing one at that. One struggles to fight the nagging suspicion that “Charlie” Teo, who practiced neurosurgery in the US for 10 years and specialises in paediatric brain tumours, might be in with Burzynski in a, well, scheme that first milks tens of thousands of dollars out of patients and their desperate parents for brain surgery, only for families to then be told that they need ongoing “antineoplaston” treatment at Bruzynski’s clinic in Houston, which again costs tens to hundrets of thousands of dollars.
Charles Teo’s methods, from reading up on the guy, are controversial to say the least. He is not a member of the Neurosurgical Society of Australasia, and he was critisized by the College of Surgeons for offering laypersons to watch him perform brain surgery. He seems to be specializing in operating on inoperable tumours like glioblastomas, reduces their size, and then recommends Bruzynski’s “antineoplastons” to finish the job. But don’t just take it from me, take it from his patients :
After much research and the help of many friends we discovered Dr Charles Teo from Prince of Wales Private Hospital in Sydney, who performs surgery on inoperable brain tumors. Dr Teo is a neurosurgeon who has pioneered a method of minimally invasive brain surgery and has successfully performed around 5000 operations. Dr Teo has offered to operate on David and at this stage the operation is scheduled for Friday, 20th September 2002. David, with the support of his family will fly to Sydney on Wednesday, 18th September 2002.
This process is not a cure, however, it is designed to relieve the pressure by reducing the size of the tumor, he will need further treatment to kill off any remaining pieces of the tumor. The treatment being researched at the moment is antineoplastons treatment which is administered by the Burzynski Clinic in Houston, USA.
Another example of a Burzynski – Teo connection :
However, Braydon’s mother Zoe Cobb hoped the Sebastopol toddler could begin treatment soon at the Burzynski Clinic in Houston, Texas.
“We’ll talk more about it with Charlie (Dr Charles Teo) this afternoon,” Zoe said. “We’re just off for the MRI scans now.”
The Burzynski Clinic, named after founder Stanislaw Burzynski, specialises in individual cancer treatments.
Zoe said they had discussed taking Braydon to Texas with Dr Teo, who said he felt it would be a good option for the four-year-old
From reading the stories of those desperate parents of children with inoperable brain tumours, I must conclude that Dr Charles Teo may deliberately choose to operate on children with tumours he knows these kids will die of, because current medical science has no cure to offer them. He then removes the tumour or at least some of it for what is said to be between 20000.- and 60000.- dollars for the surgery at Prince of Wales Hospital in Sydney and the high dependency care required afterwards, and he then recommends to the parents for their child to have additional treatment with “antineoplastons” at the Burzynski clinic in Houston, Texas. Treatment that is not FDA-approved, that has not been shown in trials meeting current scientific standards to be effective, and that is given only in exchange for exorbitant sums of money, and may be refused if the money is not forthcoming.
Charles Teo and Stanislaw Burzynski appear to be making money from the desperation of parents of dying children. Teo seems to be offering hope through surgery when there is none, and he then seems to be referring those same desperate folks for more false hope, and more expenses, to the Burzynski clinic in Houston.
Pingback: Charles Teo has a lucrative racket | Pharyngula
This is a lowball effort at best, malicious at worst. If you are purporting to report on medical therapies you should know the difference between causation and association. Your “evidence” of a link between Teo and the Burzynski clinic appears to consist of one instance where a single patient has indicated that they *will* investigate the clinic (you cannot blame them for chasing down all leads and let’s hope that is as far as they went down that line) and another instance where another patient asserts that Teo agreed that it was a good option. As a medico you should be more than aware of the dangers of taking at face value a patient restating a diagnosis/prescription. And as someone wanting to be in the journalistic space you should also be more than aware that a secondhand attribution is sketchy. So until you have any sort of credible evidence this is nothing but a grubby smear attempt.
superzac did you actually read the article? More than one case linking Teo to the vile scam artist Burzynski are cited.
I read and re-read it, and I can only see 2 cases, as the first post says. I went to the links, same deal. Please correct me if I’m wrong. If I’m not, you might want to clarify your position in light of the known facts, assuming you really are interested in that kind of thing.
This Teo sounds like an egoist, but his connection with Burzynski is by no means shown by these examples.
Pingback: On leaping to conclusions about a neurosurgeon and Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski
I have not questioned Dr Teo’s ability to perform brain surgery, he seems to have developed a micro-invasive technique that is quite renowned and successful, and I’m sure he is an excellent surgeon. But all I need is one case, and I have mentioned two, where Dr Teo has recommended an unproven treatment with a urine-derived substance in a clinic that charges tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege and that, unlike any public health service, should you not fork out the money, may refuse to treeat you at all. One case is enough to show that Charlie Teo is, at best, of questionable morals. At worst, a doctor who operates on inoperable tumours for shitloads of money, and then refers his suffering clients to a known quack for some more milking.
Pingback: On leaping to conclusions about a neurosurgeon and Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski / Defeat Osteosarcoma
Pingback: On leaping to conclusions about a neurosurgeon and Dr. Stanislaw … | Cancer
Odd. I noticed that somehow my post on this issue was listed as a pingback from two different sites stealing my content. Here’s the real deal:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/on_leaping_to_conclusions.php
The two cases you mentioned are hardly definitive. One is a report from the Courier Mail, not the most reliable of papers, which reports, as the first poster says, “patient asserts that Teo agreed that it was a good option”. We don’t have Teo’s version of events.
The second is a link to a blog that tracks the illness of the unfortunate man who died on cancer almost 9 years ago. Teo operated, then they went to see the quack Burzynski. There is nothing in that website that suggests Teo condoned or recommended they do that afterwards. You know what post hoc ergo propterhoc means, right?
Orac, I didn’t steal your content because I don’t usually read your blog. You hardly are the only one writing about Burzynski.
Martin, I believe Orac is referring to the two pingbacks listed directly above his comment, not you.
And they very definitely are stealing his content.
http :// defeatosteosarcoma.org/2011/12/on-leaping-to-conclusions-about-a-neurosurgeon-and-dr-stanislaw-burzynski/
http :// cancer.akwellnesskorner.com/cancer/on-leaping-to-conclusions-about-a-neurosurgeon-and-dr-stanislaw
Martin, you really need to watch this
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2010/12/02/3082876.htm
I posted it on orac’s blog, but there are a lot of comments there. Easy to miss these things.
I have no love for Teo, but every concern you raise over at respectful insolence is answered in that video. He thinks about all the ethical concerns you bring up, and discusses them eloquently and with honesty. He probably comes to a different conclusion than you, but that doesn’t give you the right to smear him.
Seriously, you gotta retract, and let pz know immediately. You have directly named and shamed a surgeon on really flimsy evidence, without knowing pretty much anything about him.
Watch the video, he is 20 minutes in. watch the q and at the end. I will be very surprised if you see anything but a thoughtful surgeon doing what he thinks is best, and as far as I can make out, using the best evidence.
Until there are facts that he actively has referred anyone to a quack like SB this whole thing is crazy
Ok. This site is obviously owned or written by the FDA.