Is Burzynski's difficulty to get published in mainstream journals evidence of quackery?

The basic premise from this blog, is that since Burzynski has not been published in highly ranked journals (based on the IF), in her words, "your research is terrible."

One must first clearly establish that these journals do not have any conflicting interests. Who is funding these trials? Generally it is the pharmaceutical companies. Who approves trials? The FDA. Who has a financial interest in not rocking the boat? Doctors running trials who are being paid by the very same companies and the corresponding journals that publish their data.

Who is controlling the FDA? Regulatory capture is an established idea and here's at least one person questioning the FDA's impartiality:

In the words of Marcia Angell, The agency's coziness with industry is underscored by the composition of its 18 advisory committees -- outside experts who help evaluate drugs. Incredibly, many of these advisers work as consultants for drug companies. This argument mirror the ones made in the documentary on Burzynski.

To accept the notion that the FDA has no conflicting notions, we must reject the idea that the money flowing into the FDA from said companies and the revolving door of the agency/Pharma complex do not taint what they publish. This is difficult hard pill to swallow for this skeptic.

To reiterate the basic premise, if you are not published in the highly ranked journals, your research is therefore terrible. First of all, this does not necessarily follow logically for obvious reasons. Second of all, I think there is very clear reason to cast doubt on the the political motives of journals and the FDA. While not necessarily false, the premise is at the very least tainted and I think it's up to those opposing Burznyski to address this- to establish that there is no monied-bias against Burzynski or if there is, whether it is relevant.