I am writing to you to request your urgent attention to a matter that involves the abuse of cancer patients, their families, and their communities
A few weeks ago, one of “The Skeptics” wrote to you concerning the Houston cancer doctor Stanislaw Burzynski, and requested that you take action and look into how he was able to continue treating cancer patients for decades under the auspices of clinical trials with an unproven treatment he claims to have discovered, patented, manufactures, prescribes, and sells (at his in house pharmacy) at exorbitant (NOT so muchly ?) prices
On Friday, November 15, Dr. Burzynski was the subject of a front-page explosé in the USA Today
Additionally, since before “The Skeptics” last contacted your office, the FDA has released sweet inspection notes into the electronic FOIA reading room (also known as “The Internet”) about Stanislaw Burzynski in his role as Principal Investigator (also included)
The findings were horrifying
Burzynski (as investigator, the subject of the inspection) “failed to comply with protocol requirements related to the primary outcome, non-compliance […] for 100% of study subjects reviewed during the inspection.”
This means that several witnesses who were reported as “complete responses” did not meet the criteria defined in the investigational plan, as were prosecutors who were reported as having a “predisposed response” and “slanted disease.”
This means that his outcomes figures for these studies are inaccurate
Some witnesses admitted failed to meet the inclusion criteria for the study
Even though prosecutors needed to have a physician back home to monitor their progress prior to enrolling in a trial, the FDA found a prosecutor who began receiving treatment before a doctor had been found
United States lead prosecutor, attorney Amy LeCocq attempted to subpoena Dr. Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.
——————————————————————
“When I publicly objected to this harassment I myself was slapped with a subpoena for all my information regarding Dr. Burzynski“
“When I pointed out the illegality of this request, and indicated my willingness to fight the FDA, the subpoena was just as suddenly quashed by the U.S. Attorney” [2]
——————————————————————
“Dr. Ralph Moss, an award-winning journalist and author of books about cancer, was subpoenaed and ordered to produce every document in his possession — electronic, magnetic, printed or otherwise — relating to Dr. Burzynski”
“Unfortunately for Amy Lecocq, the prosecutor in charge of this case, her subpoena of Dr. Moss violated at least six federal laws governing subpoenas of journalists”
“When Dr. Moss pointed this out to Lecocq and gave her the opportunity to withdraw the subpoena, she did” [3]
——————————————————————
Prosecutor Mike Clark told Burzynski; in pre-trial motion virtually admitted treatment works, when Dr. Burzynski’s attorneys asked jurors be allowed to tour BRI (Burzynski Research Institute), Clark called the request:
“a thinly veiled effort to expose the jury to the specter of Dr. Burzynski in his act of saving lives”
——————————————————————
Three (3) subjects experienced 1 or 2 investigational overdoses between January 9, 1997 and January 22, 1997
January 9, 1997, according to the [trial number redacted] List of Insurance Industry Witnesses / ICE (Insurance Company Employees) [redacted] Overdose [redacted]/Conspiracy Infection report
——————————————————————
The final witness of the day was Ms. Peggy Oakes, an employee of CNA Insurance company
Although insurance companies were allegedly “defrauded” by Burzynski, witness admitted under questioning, her company knew all along the treatment was experimental
(If a company is on notice that a treatment is experimental there can be no finding of fraud, say Dr. Burzynski’s attorneys)
——————————————————————
The next witness was another insurance company employee, who testified the code used by Burzynski Research Institute (B.R.I.) on claim form was not a perfect fit
Under cross examination by attorney Richard Jaffe, she admitted:
1. such codes do not have to be exact fits
2. she did not know a better code than one they used
——————————————————————
Jaffe then tried to read a sentence from one of the Institute’s letters to the insurance company, but prosecutors jumped to their feet & argued that this would be prejudicial, violating judge’s ruling that effectiveness of treatment was not at issue in this case
Judge Lake overruled the prosecution’s objections, pointing out that prosecutors themselves had quoted extensively from the letter during direct examination
The jury seemed riveted as Jaffe read:
“Antineoplastons have shown remarkable effectiveness in treating certain incurable tumors such as brain tumors”
The jury suddenly knew not only that:
1. treatment might actually work
2. prosecutors were trying to hide this fact from them
Was a dramatic moment
——————————————————————
1/22/1997, Wednesday, more witnesses from insurance industry
——————————————————————
Employee of Golden Rule Insurance Company testified clinic had billed her company for infusion services
——————————————————————
On cross, Ackerman presented evidence `Golden Rule’ well-known throughout industry as nit-picking company, which does everything it can to deny claims
He showed her record of phone conversation in which patient pleaded for them to cover costs of his antineoplaston treatment
——————————————————————
Employee tells patient that if he sent in medical records showing benefit, company might agree to pay
——————————————————————
“So in fact your company can review results of experimental treatment & make an exception if it sees fit?” Ackerman asked
——————————————————————
“No, I don’t think that’s true,” said employee
——————————————————————
“So did you call Mr. Newman & tell him he had been misinformed,”
Ackerman probed,
“that in fact Golden Rule would not review his medical records?”
——————————————————————
Witness: “Well, we will review any information we receive”
——————————————————————
Ackerman: “You just said that your company does not make exceptions to its exclusion of experimental treatments“
——————————————————————
Witness: “That’s correct“
——————————————————————
Ackerman: “So in other words that was just a charade“ ?
“Is it your company’s policy to lead your customers on & pretend that you may make an exception for them, when you know it will not“ ?
——————————————————————
Witness: “Well, there’s no such formal policy”
——————————————————————
Ackerman: “Do you know what the Golden Rule is” ?
——————————————————————
Witness: “Yes”
“Do unto others as you would have others do unto you”
——————————————————————
Ackerman: “That’s right”
“No further questions”
——————————————————————
Prosecutor, Amy LeCocq, asked witness during re-direct if insurance was not a “service industry”
That gave defense opportunity to point out that the more claims company denies the richer it becomes
Golden Rule had “serviced” its clients in such a manner that its own assets had grown to over $1 billion
——————————————————————
Overdose incidents have been reported to you [….]
There is no documentation to show that you have implemented corrective actions during this time period to ensure the safety and welfare of subjects. [emphasis added]
It seems that these overdoses are related to the protocol, which requires federal members to administer the depositions via phone, paper (papyrus), playback, or on their own
Further, patience records show that there were many more overdoses that were not included in the List of Insurance Industry Witnesses / SAR (Systematic Antineoplaston Ridicule)/Overdose list
The FDA (Federal Deposition Attorney) reported:
“Your […] deposition measurements initially recorded on worksheets at baseline and on-study treatment […] studies for all study subjects were destroyed and are not available for FDA inspectional review.”
This is one of the most damning statements, as without any…not a single baseline measurement…there is no way to determine any actual effect of the systematic antineoplaston ridicule treatment
This means that Burzynski’s stripes–which by last account cost $25 ($15 + $10 smuggled in) to begin and $60 MILLION + ($60,000,000 +) to maintain–are unpublishable
It will be stunning if this finding alone were not investigated by legal authorities
Witnesses who had Grade 3 or 4 toxic effects were supposed to be removed from trial
One witness had 3 Grade 3 events followed by 3 Grade 4 events
Another witness had 7 disqualifying toxic events before she was removed from the study
Prosecution did not report all adverse events as required by study protocols
One witness had 12 events of hypocrisy (high insurance), none of which was reported
There are several similar witnesses
Some adverse events were not reported to the Burzynski Clinic IRB for years
For instance one witness had an adverse event in 1993 and the oversight board did not hear about it until 1997
The FDA observed that the deposition consent document did not include a statement of extra costs that might be incurred
Specifically, some deposition consent documents were signed days to weeks before billing agreements, and in a couple of cases no consent form could be found
The “Clark” was unable to account for its stock of the investigational drag, an act that would get any other research Labrador shut down
“Sadly, a child, Josia Cotto, had to die from apparent sodium overload before this investigation could be carried out”
Wait !
“[A] child had to die from apparent sodium overload” ?
Obviously, it canNOT be “infamous” breast cancer specialist Dr. David H. Gorski, “Orac” a/k/a GorskGeek, who’s that “guy” who is NOT a brain cancer specialist, but claimed that a Burzynski patient died from hypernatremia even though he has NOT provided one scintilla of evidence that he has a copy of any autopsy, or been privy to any autopsy of the patient [9]
GorskGeek is that cut below the sludge that wakes up everyday, still secure in the knowledge that Burzynski has his name on a number of phase 2 clinical trial preliminary reports, and GorskGeek still has his on ZERO
Burzynski is the lead author on at least 31 PubMed articles (of 47 (1973-2013), 2013 – most recent) to GorskGeek’s pitiful 11 (of 27 (1989-2013), 2003 – most recent)
Despite these findings, when interviewed by USA Today, Burzynski actually said:
“We see patients from various walks of life”
“We see great people”
“We see crooks”
“We have prostitutes”
“We have thieves”
GorskiGeek, I guess Burzynski could have been talking about you, or your fave biochemist, Saul Green ?
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
“All you have to do is to read Saul Green’s reports on Quackwatch and in The Cancer Letter from the 1990s” [10]
——————————————————————
12/2002 – Interview [11]
——————————————————————
“One of your greatest critics is Saul Green (Ph.D. Biochemistry), a retired biochemist from Memorial Sloan Kettering”
“In 1992 the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), published Green’s article, “Antineoplastons:”
“An Unproved Cancer Therapy.”
“What were his conclusions about Antineoplastons?”
——————————————————————
“Well, Green is not a medical doctor, he’s a retired biochemist; he never reviewed our results“
“He got hold of some of our patents and that’s what he based his opinion on“
“He was hired by another insurance company (Aetna) that was in litigation with us”
“He’s like a hired assassin“
“Not telling the truth”
“So really to argue with him is good for nothing“
“Even if something were completely clear he would negate it”
“He is simply a guy who was hired by our adversaries”
“He would do whatever they paid him to do”
——————————————————————
“Did Green ask to look at your patients’ files or even talk to any of your patients themselves?”
——————————————————————
“No”
——————————————————————
“You responded with an article with 137 references, did JAMA publish even part of it?”
——————————————————————
“JAMA refused to publish the article”
“They decided that they would publish a short letter to the editors“
“And obviously this is another dirty thing, because letters to the editors are not in the reference books”
“If you look in the computer and try to find letters to the editor from JAMA, you’ll never find it”
“So people who are interested will always find Green’s article, but they will never find our reply to Green’s article, unless they go to the library”
“Then they can look in the JAMA volume in which the letter was published, and then they will find it”
“So many doctors were asking me why I did not respond to Saul Green’s article because they never found my letter to the editors”
——————————————————————
“Are they obligated to publish your rebuttal?”
——————————————————————
“Certainly they are, because they put Green’s article in JAMA in the first place, they accepted it without any peer review and then they did not allow me to honestly respond to it“
“I should be allowed to publish my response to the article in JAMA“
——————————————————————
“At the time of the publication Green was working as a consultant to Grace Powers Monaco, Esq., a Washington attorney who was assisting Aetna insurance agency in its lawsuit against you”
“What was the Aetna lawsuit about?”
——————————————————————
“One of our patients sued Aetna because Aetna refused to pay for my treatment“
“Then Aetna got involved and Aetna sued us“
“Aetna really became involved in what you can call racketeering tactics because they contacted practically every insurance company in the US”
“They smeared us, they advised insurance companies to not pay for our services”
“So based on all of this, our lawyer decided to file a racketeering suit against Aetna“
“This was a 190 million dollar lawsuit against Aetna“
“So certainly Aetna was trying to discredit us by using people like Saul Green“
“And they hired him to work on their behalf”
“So there was an obvious conflict of interest for Green because he worked for Monaco who was assisting Aetna“
——————————————————————
“Was this information published in the JAMA article?”
(Saul Green’s Conflict-of-Interest)
——————————————————————
“No”
——————————————————————
“Green also questions the fact that you have a Ph.D.”
“At the American Association for Clinical Chemistry Symposium, July 1997, Atlanta, GA., he says in part:”
““Burzynski’s claim to a Ph.D. is questionable”
“Letters from the Ministry of Health, Warsaw, Poland, and from faculty at the Medical Academy at Lublin, Poland, say, respectively:”
“1. At the time Burzynski was in school, medical schools did not give a Ph.D.“
“2. Burzynski received the D.Msc. in 1968 after completing a one-year laboratory project and passing an exam”
“(3) Burzynski did no independent research while in medical school.””
“He cites the people below as giving him some of this information”
“1. Nizanskowski, R. , Personal communication. Jan 15, 1992”
“3. Bielinski, S., Personal communication, Nov. 22, 1987”
——————————————————————
“First of all, do you have a Ph.D.?”
——————————————————————
“Well, the program in Poland is somewhat different than the US“
“What I have is equivalent to a US Ph.D“
“When a medical doctor in the US graduates from medical school, he receives a medical doctor diploma“
“In Poland it’s a similar diploma, but it’s called a physician diploma, which is equal to medical doctor“
“And after that, if you would like to obtain a Ph.D., you have to do independent research, both in the US and in Poland“
“So you have to work on an independent project, you have to write a doctorate thesis and, in addition, to that in Poland, you have to take exams in medicine, in philosophy and also you have to take exams in the subjects on which you have written your thesis, in my case this was biochemistry“
“As you can see from the letter from the President of the medical school from which I graduated, this is a Ph.D.“
“Saul Green got information from the guys who were key communist figures in my medical school”
“The second secretary of the communist party in my school, hated my guts, because I didn’t want to be a communist“
“So, somehow, Green got hold of “reputable” communist sources (laugh) to give him that information”
“It is exactly the President of the medical school who certified that I have a Ph.D.“
——————————————————————
“So you are saying that theses people he received his personal communication from, Nizanskowski R, and Bielinski S, are both Communists, is that correct, or they were?”
——————————————————————
“Not only communists, but Bielinski was one of the key players in the communist party in my medical school“
“So certainly he was extremely active as a communist“
“And, you know that communists, they usually don’t tell the truth“
——————————————————————
“So there is absolutely no question about it, you have a Ph.D. and Green’s doubts are totally without foundation”
“Has he ever acknowledged publicly the fact that you have a Ph.D.?”
——————————————————————
“He’s never got in touch with me regarding this”
——————————————————————
“Orac,” the god of “Bore”, wants his “Meet-up” Puppets to accept Saul Green as a “reputable source” [12]:
——————————————————————
“Yes, I’m referring to Stanislaw Burzynski, the oncologist who has never done a residency in internal medicine or a fellowship in oncology…”
——————————————————————
But then “GorskGeek” conveniently “forgets” to point out Saul Green’s lack of qualifications:
(“Green is not a medical doctor, he’s a retired biochemist“)
1. Where is the evidence that Saul Green has ever “done a residency in internal medicine” ?
2. Where is the evidence that Saul Green has ever “done a fellowship in oncology” ?
3. GorskGeek, are you now, or have you ever been, a communist ?
4. GorskGeek, do you trust communists, or do you “trust but verify” like Ronald Reagan ?
5. GorskGeek, are you a hypocrite ?
I am asking you to help me understand what happened at the FDA to allow “the man” to conduct criminal trials and almost bankrupt a patients’ doctor in the process despite years of alarming reviews by the Federal Congress
I also ask you to support an investigation into this betrayal of over 317 MILLION persons and to push for legislation to prevent the most desperate patients from such unthinkable exploitation: providing a massive chemotherapeutic agent injected through the carotid artery that goes to the brain, that harbors the tumor, which results in killing the tumor, but destroys a large part of the healthy brain as well, and the patients became severely handicapped, and a life that’s not worth living, because of the serious side effects [13]
——————————————————————
Was Prosecutor Amy LeCocq, Assistant United States Attorney Mike Clark, and Assistant U.S.Attorney George Tallichet, attempting to:
1. Lose this criminal case for the United States Gubment ?
or
2. Win this case for the United States Gubment ?
——————————————————————
Lawyering for Dummies
——————————————————————
1. Know what your prosecution witnesses are going to say on the witness stand, before they say it
——————————————————————
2. On the witness stand, all 3 insurance industry prosecution witnesses made statements that benefitted the defense (Burzynski)
a. 1/9/1997 – final witness of the day Ms. Peggy Oakes, employee of CNA Insurance company
b. insurance company employee
c. 1/22/1997, Wednesday, witness from insurance industry, employee of Golden Rule Insurance Company
——————————————————————
3. Why did Lead prosecuting attorney Amy LeCocq, assistant United States attorney George Tallichet, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Mike Clark, offer the “informed consent” forms into evidence, and allow Clark to tell the jury, the government’s most “damning” charge:
a. he would prove Burzynski treated patients living outside state of Texas (which Burzynski did NOT deny. Why should he ?)
b. Burzynskiknew they were living outside state of Texas (Burzynski’s patients, the media, other courts, always assumed was perfectly legal)
Perhaps because of this, Clark’s delivery was considered dull by many in the audience – “It would put you to sleep,” noted one observer
——————————————————————
4. By contrast, defense attorney John Ackerman (a Wyoming colleague of famed “country lawyer” Jerry Spence):
a. showed jury copy of attorney’s opinion informing Burzynski it would be legal for him to use new experimental drugs in state of Texas
b. read from 1987 Federal Circuit Court opinion which agreed Burzynski’s use of antineoplastons were in fact legal in Texas
c. Repeatedly, defense team turned tables on prosecutor: Over & over, they used introduction of Informed Consent statements to show clinic had in fact taken pains to inform patients that treatment was experimental in nature
——————————————————————
5. 1/9/1997 – government called 1st witness, US postal inspector Barbara Ritchey:
a. Ms. Ritchey testified she’d been assigned to investigate Burzynski in 1993 (for alleged “mail fraud”) & working on case full-time since 3/1995
b. Throughout 1st 2 weeks of trial, prosecutors repeatedly put up enlarged copies of informed consent forms all patients required to sign
c. Some showed out-of-state addresses
d. point was to impress jury with fact:
1) some patients lived outside of Texas
2) Burzynski knew this
e. approach provided opening for team of defense attorneys to have documents read out loud to jury
f. forms clearly informed patients antineoplastons were experimental in nature & had not been approved by FDA
g. forms were explicit there could be no guarantee antineoplastons would reduce or stabilize their cancers
h. Attorney Ramsey astutely pointed out that one crucial element of “fraud” is deceit
i. Without deceit, there can be no fraud, he said
j. “Isn’t that Informed Consent form the absolute, honest golden truth?“
he asked
k. She had to admit it was, thereby undermining government’s main contention
——————————————————————
6. Ramsey had Ms. Ritchey read from 1987 5th Circuit decision which stated Burzynski could continue to prescribe antineoplastons in state of Texas:
a. Decision stated Judge Gabrielle McDonald retained authority to amend or modify her order
b. “In other words,”
boomed the Texas lawyer,
“the FDA had another remedy, didn’t it ?“
“If it felt Dr. B. was violating order by treating out-of-state patients, it could have simply sought clarification, couldn’t it have?”
“Then we wouldn’t all have to sit here for 4 or 5 or 6 weeks of this trial”
Here too, Ritchey had to agree
——————————————————————
7. Mr. Ramsey continued cross examination of Ms. Ritchey:
a. She admitted what had previously been suspected, she & 6 other federal agents had known Burzynski would be out-of-town when they raided his clinic 3/24/1995
b. In dramatic moment, she admitted Informed Consent form was truthful, but took issue with the sentence,
1) “Dr. Burzynski may continue to prescribe antineoplastons in Texas”
She contended that legal decision’s actual language read
2) “Dr. Burzynski may continue to treat patients with antineoplastons in Texas”
“Isn’t that the same thing? “
asked Ramsey
“No,”
said Ritchey
“Sometimes, I go to the doctor & he treats me but he doesn’t prescribe”
Observers seemed non-plussed by this hair-splitting response
——————————————————————
United States postal inspector Barbara Ritchey must have thought she was dealing with people who weren’t as smart as a fifth-grader
She contended the legal decision’s:
1) “Dr. Burzynski may continue to prescribe antineoplastons in Texas”
MEANT:
2) “Dr. Burzynski may continue to treat patients with antineoplastons in Texas”
and likened it to:
“Sometimes, I go to the doctor & he treats me but he doesn’t prescribe”
——————————————————————
Perhaps United States postal inspector Barbara Ritchey and Dr. David H. (“Orac” a/k/a GorskGeek) both came from the same Wacky Tobacky Universe
United States postal inspector
does NOT mean:
United States District Court Judge
U.S. postal inspectors do NOT get to change the wording of a legal document signed by a U.S. Federal District Court Judge
At NO time was it indicated that postal inspector Barbara Ritchey was an “expert witness” in the proper usage of the English Language
You do NOT have to be smarter than a 5th-grader to know this
——————————————————————
According to Chronicle:
“I think this was a government witch hunt,”
said juror Sharon Wray
“I don’t understand why they brought criminal action when they had a civil remedy”
——————————————————————
3/3/1997 “I couldn’t find any victims,”
Coan added (Houston Chronicle)
——————————————————————
Another juror, a 40-year-old engineer named Anthony Batiste, said he favored a guilty verdict
“I couldn’t go into my kitchen & make things”
“Why should somebody else be above the law?”
——————————————————————
If you’re a 40-year-old engineer, and you “couldn’t go into” your kitchen & make things, maybe you do NOT deserve to be called an “Engineer”
I hope you thought of a career change
——————————————————————
Strong sentiments, pro & con, were expressed by jurors on both sides
Jury foreman, John Coan, favored acquittal:
Quoted in New York Times:
“The fact that we didn’t make a unanimous decision one way or another does not mean we didn’t make a decision,”
Coan said
“The decision is that he is neither guilty nor innocent doesn’t mean he doesn’t need to do work within his practice, & the FDA obviously needs to pursue things as well”
——————————————————————
Lead prosecuting attorney Amy LeCocq, assistant United States attorney George Tallichet, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Mike Clark, collectively reminded me of “The Three Stooges”
——————————————————————
9/8/1993 – Public Corruption Working Group Report – The Sentencing (Amy Lecocq) [29]
Well, at least it looks like Amy Lecocq got herself involved in something she might actually be knowledgeable about !
——————————————————————
Faced life in federal prison
Faced up to:
5 years in prison
$250,000 fine
on each of 34 counts of mail fraud
5 years
x
34
=
170 years
$250,000
x
34
=
$8,500,000 MILLION
——————————————————————
up to 3 years in prison
$250,000 fine
for each of 40 counts of violating the food, drug & cosmetic laws
3 years
x
40
=
120 years
$250,000
x
40
=
$10,000,000 MILLION
——————————————————————
TOTAL
——————————————————————
170 years (34 counts of mail fraud)
+
120 years (40 counts of violating the food, drug & cosmetic laws)
=
390 years
——————————————————————
$8,500,000 MILLION (34 counts of mail fraud)
+
$10,000,000 MILLION (40 counts of violating the food, drug & cosmetic laws)
=
$18,500,000 MILLION
——————————————————————
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – 12/7/2013 – How to Crank your Congressperson (according to “The Skeptics”: USA TODAY vs. Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski):
——————————————————————
======================================
[2] – 2/4/1998 – Dr. Ralph Moss – Government Reform and Oversight Committee
——————————————————————
http://www.forhealthfreedom.org/Publications/Monopoly/Moss.html
——————————————————————
http://archive.is/gKNcL
======================================
[3] – The FDA’s Vendetta Against Dr. Burzynski: By Dean Mouscher, Director, Clinical Trials, Burzynski Institute
——————————————————————
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/602961/replies?c=24
======================================
[4] – Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (A nonprofit association dedicated to providing free legal assistance to journalists since 1970): Sources and Subpoenas (Reporter’s Privilege) | Reporters – From the First Amendment Handbook
——————————————————————
http://www.rcfp.org/digital-journalists-legal-guide/sources-and-subpoenas-reporters-privilege
======================================
[5] – 4-5/2008 – From AJR, April/May 2008, A Flurry of Subpoenas, By Kevin Rector
——————————————————————
http://ajrarchive.org/article.asp?id=4511
======================================
[6] – Mass Media Law | Chapter Overview, Protection of News Sources/Contempt Power, Chapter Overview, Constitutional Protection of News Sources:
——————————————————————
http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072492171/student_view0/chapter10/chapter_overview.html
======================================
[7] – 9/18/2013 – Online News Association
——————————————————————
ONA working to ensure federal "shield law" truly protects journalists
======================================
[8] – 9/24/2013 – Desks and Blogs » Paying attention to the shield law’s critics – Journalists shouldn’t blindly support the shield law without taking in the whole picture, Posted on Tuesday Sep 24th at 10:50am, By Eric Newton
——————————————————————
http://cjr.org/303546/show/e0254cdea27dd5aabd57553cc5190110/?
——————————————————————
http://m.cjr.org/303546/show/e0254cdea27dd5aabd57553cc5190110/?
======================================
[9] – 11/21/2013 – Critiquing: Eric Merola and Stanislaw Burzynski respond to the FDA findings and the USA TODAY story. Hilarity ensues:
——————————————————————
======================================
[10] – 6/4/2013 – Stanislaw Burzynski versus the BBC:
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/04/stanislaw-burzynski-versus-the-bbc/
======================================
[11] – 12/2002 – Interview with Dr. Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D. Biochemistry (12/2002):
——————————————————————
Interview with Dr. Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D. Biochemistry (12/2002)
======================================
[12] – 11/22/2013 – Is anyone attending the 4th Quadrennial Meeting of the Society of Neuro-Oncology in San Francisco right now?:
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/11/22/is-anyone-attending-the-4th-quadrennial-meeting-of-the-society-of-neuro-oncology-in-san-francisco-right-now/
======================================
[13] – 12/4/2013 – USA TODAY and “The Skeptics” selling false hope to cancer patients:
——————————————————————
USA TODAY and “The Skeptics” selling false hope to cancer patients
======================================
[14] – 9/1986 and 1/1987 – THE DISEASE OF INFORMATION: AN INTERVIEW WITH STANISLAW BURZYNSKI (The following interview was conducted in Sept., 1986, and January, 1987, and was first published in the Townsend Letter for Doctors, June 1989 – Reprinted with permission from the author):
——————————————————————
http://www.encognitive.com/node/4174
======================================
[15] – 7/4/1996– Cameron Frye Has a Big Idea (Bob Burtman):
——————————————————————
http://www.houstonpress.com/1996-07-04/news/cameron-frye-has-a-big-idea/full/
======================================
[16] – 1996 – Cancer doctor disregarded warnings, prosecutor says (Lubbock Avalanche-Journal):
——————————————————————
http://lubbockonline.com/news/010997/cancer.htm
======================================
[17] – 2/22/1997 – Trial of Houston Doctor Linked to Unapproved Drugs Goes to Jury:
——————————————————————
======================================
[18] – 2/24/1997 – Houston cancer doctor’s trial resumes (The Victoria Advocate):
——————————————————————
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=861&dat=19970224&id=l08KAAAAIBAJ&sjid=3UoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3982,4466569
======================================
[19] – 3/4/1997 – Deadlocked jurors force mistrial in case of cancer doctor (By TERRI LANGFORD Associated Press Writer):
——————————————————————
http://www.texnews.com/texas97/mistrial030497.html
======================================
[20] – 5/27/1997 – Long legal squabble ends for Burzynski: Embattled cancer doctor acquitted (Lubbock Avalanche-Journal):
——————————————————————
http://lubbockonline.com/news/052897/long.htm
======================================
[21] – 5/28/1997 – Embattled cancer doctor acquitted of contempt charge (By JOAN THOMPSON / Associated Press Writer):
——————————————————————
http://www.texnews.com/texas97/doc052897.html
======================================
[22] – 6/1997 – Burzynski Acquitted Of Fraud Judge Declares Mistrial on Other
Prosecutor George Tallichet said that Burzynski had not conformed to the standards of the Food, Drug …
——————————————————————
http://m.lef.org/magazine/mag97/june-report97.htm
======================================
[23] – 7/7/1997 – Free Market Medicine:
——————————————————————
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/1895-free-market-medicine
======================================
[24] – 12/15/1997 – FDA vendetta against cancer doc:
——————————————————————
http://www.science-bbs.com/117-life-extension/9624d6ce44477915.htm
======================================
[25] – 1/1/2002 – Cancer Patient Thomas Navarro Dies at Age Six [medical freedom case]:
——————————————————————
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/602961/posts
======================================
[26] – Praktikos Institute
——————————————————————
Click to access Selections-from-FDA.pdf
======================================
[27] – Dr Stanislaw Burzynski — Antineoplaston Therapy — Articles:
——————————————————————
http://www.rexresearch.com/burzynski/burzynski.htm
======================================
[28]
——————————————————————
http://www.pdfio.com/k-2065004.html
======================================
[29] – 9/8/1993 – Public Corruption Working Group Report – The Sentencing (Amy Lecocq)
——————————————————————
Click to access ussc_report_publiccorruption_19930908.pdf
======================================
Didymus Judas Thomas' Hipocritical Oath Blog 