Pete Cohen talks to Steve and Mary Jo Siegel

This is our the best and the dearest, uh, patient who came to our clinic 20
——————————————————————
2
——————————————————————
2 years ago
——————————————————————
22 years ago
——————————————————————
and she was in the, she came with Hodgkin lymphoma, and a stage 4, and she didn’t have good, uh, prognosis
How long, did they tell you
——————————————————————
They told me that I was gonna die, of non-Hodgkins lymphoma
That I had a fatal disease
They would treat me for awhile with, uh, chemotherapy and radiation, um, a bone marrow transplant, and, um, we, they, we would see what would happen, but no cure
Not a cure at all
——————————————————————
So
——————————————————————
That was 22 years ago
Um, I thank God everyday that I found Dr. Burzynski’s clinic, and Dr. Burzynski and his staff
Um, I was on his treatment for, um, 3 months when this huge tumor on the side of my neck started to reduce and finally disappeared
——————————————————————
So we adopted her as our, uh, family
——————————————————————
(laughs)
——————————————————————
Yeah
——————————————————————
and now, she is our family member, and many others
——————————————————————
So tell me, uh, how did you find out about Dr. Burzynski?
——————————————————————
I was in a cancer support group, and, uh, one of the ladies in there said, you know, you have non-Hodgkins lymphoma
There’s a doctor in Houston whose been treating it with very good results
You should go and check it out
Which I went back home to my husband and said: “There’s Dr. Burzynski in Houston, Texas, and he’s having good results,” and, ah, Steve said: “You know, I’ve heard of this doctor
You know, I wrote his name down”
He’d heard about him
Wrote his name down for future use, and I think about, uh, the next couple of days we were in Houston, and we got to the clinic and I just felt I was in the right place
Everybody there
It was
The feeling was so different than being at a UCLA or a USC or Dana Farber
It was just
I knew immediately I was in the right place, and I met Dr. Burzynski
Well first of all Dr. Barbara came out and hugged me, and, uh, it was, it was so wonderful and I’ll never forget the feeling of, of, uh, my first walk into the Burzynski Clinic
——————————————————————
So tell me, what did, uh, any, did, did you have an oncologist at home and tell them that you were coming here ?
——————————————————————
Yeah, we did
Um, uh, I had an oncologist at UCLA who was a lymphoma specialist, and he was the one that told me I would die of the disease
Um, when we told him that we were going to see Dr. Burzynski, he wasn’t, uh, overjoyed, to say the least, and he told us very negative things and, uh, but I thought, he wasn’t offering me anything, and, uh, when I did get to the Burzynski Clinic, Dr. Burzynski said to me: “I think I can help you,” he said
He didn’t
He didn’t tell me, he was going to cure me
He didn’t
He just said: “I think I can help you,” and, it was non-toxic, and the, um, conventional medicine was offering me high-dose chemotherapy, radiation, and in fact, in mu, as much radiation as people who were, uh, within one mile of ground zero at Hiroshima, and, and they were going to bring me as close to death as possible, and then, rescue me
Uh, and then Dr. Burzynski was going to do this and actually have, where actually I would have hope of a cure, non-toxically
My hair never fell out
I felt well
Um, I lead my normal life
I drove my kids to school
I cleaned the house
Whatever
You know
It was
It’s a wonderful treatment
——————————————————————
So, at what point did you realize, I’m free of cancer ?
Do you remember that point of ?
——————————————————————
Uh, well I remember the point
I remember it very well
Um, the, it
It’s so big
Um, I had, uh, several CAT scans
I had 2 CAT scans in a row
The first one that showed no cancer at all, and, um, I had them done at UCLA, and, um, and then I had a second one, 3 months later, and that one was, was absolutely clear
So, um, it was, it was an amazing feeling, and actually 48 hours was following me, because it was, it was a really a big story, um, you know
Cancer throughout my body
No, no cancer at all and, and my medical records show, um, you look at my X-rays, my CAT scans, from starting Dr. Burzynski’s treatment, um, to approximately 9 months later
Reduction, reduction, reduction, until there was no cancer
——————————————————————
So what did, what did your oncologist say ?
Did you, did you go back to your oncologist and say: “You said I was gonna die”
——————————————————————
Uh, yes, we did that
——————————————————————
And what did he say ?
——————————————————————
And, and actually people would call him and a, people who were interested in Dr. Burzynski, and he would say: “Oh, she’s a spontaneous remission”
He would never accept the fact that I was treated, and cured by Dr. Burzynski, but my medical records prove it, and of, you know I, There are so many patients like me
I’m not the only one
So
——————————————————————
So ok, tell me
Let me ask you a couple more questions
——————————————————————
Mhmm
——————————————————————
What sort of a person do you think Dr. Burzynski is?
——————————————————————
Well aside from being the most wonderful, gentle, sensitive, caring doctor, and you don’t find many of those
I went to many doctors, while, while we were trying to find the answer
Many, and Dr. Burzynski is so above them
He, because he really makes you feel like a person, and that he cares, and, he’s also a genius
He, I know that he speaks about 8 languages
He’s an expert on the Bible
He, he just knows so much about everything
Um, I love to be in the room with him
He’s a very special man
——————————————————————
So, you recovered, and then, ’cause you, when did you set up the patient support group, and why did you do that ?
——————————————————————
Uh, actually my husband and I did that together, and it was during, um, the trials, uh, the Texas State Board started, in fact, I became a patient, and 2 months later, ah, he was brought to a hearing in front of the Texas State Medical Board, and so Steve and I, um, organized the patients to, um, be at that hearing to support Dr. B, ’cause he’d been going through this long before I became a patient, but, um, we wanted to show support, because I was already starting to fe, I was feeling better already
I was already seeing some reduction, and now my, the medicine was in jeopardy
I, It could be taken away from me at any time
So we decided to organize the patients and to show support, and all the patients wanted to help, a, uh, obviously
So, um, we’d go to every hearing, every, uh, the trial, we were there every day, um, and we would, patients would march in front of the court building, um,
It was, it was really a sight
An unbelievable sight
——————————————————————
And why do you think that he was treated the way that he was treated ?
Why do you think they wanted to take him down ?
——————————————————————
I think it’s because
There’s many reasons
I think the main reason is because what Dr. Burzynski does is making what all other conventional doctors are doing wrong, because chemotherapy is not the answer
Chemotherapy makes people sick, and, uh, most of the time it does not cure people
Um, all that poison and radiation
There’s gotta be a better way, and there is a better way
Dr. Burzynski has found it
I was sick
I had cancer 22 years ago
Um, my hair never fell out, and, uh, it was a treatment that I was grateful to be on every day
——————————————————————
So how many patients have you come in contact with that Dr. Burzynski
——————————————————————
Hundreds
Hundreds, and as you say by my patient group web-site
Um, I think I have about 90 stories on there now, and there are many more, because, um, I haven’t been able to get in touch with everybody, but over the years, uh, people give me their stories
Sometimes people will call me, um, but we, we are a patient group because we, we’ve all been helped or cured by Dr. Burzynski, and we, we want everybody to have access to this treatment

Steve actually had the chance to ask one of, uh, one of the prosecutors, um, at the trial, that exact question: “What would you do,” and he was prosecuting Dr. Burzynski, and he actually said: “I’d be first in line”
So, once you know the whole story, and you know the science, and you, especially if you do the research, um, you, you can come to the truth, and the truth is, Dr. Burzynski, has cured cancer
He cured me
I’ve been in remission for, in remission, for, uh, 22 years, and that’s a cure, and, uh, he could help so many, many, many more people
The, he has breast cancer patients now that are, that are doing so well
He has many
I just talked to an ovarian cancer patient
He has, um, all, all different types of cancers
What he needs is funding from our government
Um, all other doctors and, and, um, institutions, they get ah, mu, get so much money from the government
Dr. Burzynski doesn’t get one penny
If we could just think
If, d, if the government would just fund Dr. Burzynski, he could have a cure for all cancers
I believe that with all my heart, and somehow, some day this has to happen
——————————————————————
The Sceptics (10:37)
——————————————————————
Yeah, just tell me what this whole kind of skeptic movement
You do any research on Dr. Burzynski there’s a few things
——————————————————————
Yes
——————————————————————
that always come up
This guy Saul
——————————————————————
Saul Green
——————————————————————
Yeah
——————————————————————
Mmm
——————————————————————
and some other stuff
——————————————————————
Yeah
——————————————————————
So just tell me
What’s that all about and where did that all come from ?
——————————————————————
It stems from, uh, a lawsuit that was filed against, uh, Dr. Burzynski
Actually it was, uh, an insurance company, that didn’t wanna pay for, uh, for the treatment
A particular patient had been treated here in Texas, uh, was put into remission
Was successfully treated and then it turns out the insurance company did not wanna pay for it, so they brought in these people
These quote unquote experts
Cancer experts of, you know, rather dubious backgrounds
This is all that they do, is they look for ways to demean people
They look for ways to blacken their reputation
They ultimately became a group known as Quack watch, and these were brought in as the expert witnesses to say that this is not an approved treatment, albeit, was not true
They said the treatment didn’t work and clearly it did, and, uh, they have since gotten funding from insurance companies, from the government, private funding, and they go around to debunk things that are against mainstream, um, medicine, and, uh, their, their support comes from the insurance company and from the pharmaceutical companies who benefit from, from their work, and, uh, it expanded
Expanded all over the world to, uh, they’re in the United States, they’re in the U.K., they’re in Australia, and, uh, they have a very big presence
When the internet came into being they, you know, they went viral with this kind of stuff
So when you type in Burzynski, uh, a lot of the negative comes up first
So that’s the first thing you see is all this negative stuff, and it’s all hearsay
None of it has any basis in fact
It’s all lies
Um, you know, he, Dr. Burzynski never did anything illegal ever, and it was all based on, on very questionable legal grounds that he was ever sued, that he was, that any case was ever brought against him by the FDA or the Texas Medical Board, and all of those cases failed
They never held up to scrutiny
They all failed, and here Dr. Burzynski is today, and he’s thriving, and people come here from all over the world to be treated
Many are cured of their cancers, and, uh, all of these people in the Quack watch are gone
Uh, Saul Green has passed away
Uh, I don’t wish him ill, but I’m glad he’s not here, thank you, and all of these other people are gone and they’re not thriving, and they’re just like, you know, they’re like bacteria or like fungus under rocks, and when you shine a light on them, they can’t hold up to the scrutiny
The real light is here
The real truth is here in Houston at the Burzynski Clinic
——————————————————————
Thoughts on Dr. Burzynski (13:46)
——————————————————————
What do you think of Dr. Burzynski, yourself ?
——————————————————————
I, I, I think Mary Jo’s pretty much summed it up
Uh, I, am of course
It, it, it’s not an unbiased opinion
It can’t be
He’s the man that saved my wife
Uh, she was cast off, um, as, as, as an incurable
She was told time and time again, not just by her on, oncologist at UCLA, Dr. Peter Rosen, but we went all over the country
We went to USC in, University of Southern California, UCLA, Stanford Medical, Dana-Farber; which is associated with Harvard, uh, in, uh, Boston, and everywhere we went, she was told: “There’s no hope”
“You’re gonna die”
“It’s just a matter of time”
“We have to see how long, how long it’s gonna take”
Um, against my better wishes, we came to the Burzynski Clinic, and she said: “I’m starting today,” and I said: “Don’t you think we should go back and discuss with Dr. Rosen at UCLA ?
She said: “No, they have nothing to offer me”
She was that brave, and we started that day, and we’ve never looked, we’ve never looked back
So to ask me about what I think about Dr. Burzynski, when my wife was told she was gonna die, and I was already making plans for how am I going to take care of my children without Mary Jo; my life partner, and he saved her life, I’m not gonna give you unbiased
——————————————————————
Mhmm
——————————————————————
an unbiased opinion of how I feel about the man
There’s probably nobody, that I have greater love and greater respect for, uh, in, in the whole world, and, uh, to add about how, how smart, how intelligent this man is, ah, expert on, on history as Barbara was saying
Expert on religion
He’s an expert on mushrooms
He knows more about mushrooms than any 10 mushroom experts in the world
Bees
He knows about bees
Who cares about bees, but he knows everything, because bees happen to be a rich production source of antineoplastons
Who knew ?
Dr. Burzynski knew, and that’s why we need to listen to him
We as a society
The world needs to listen to this man
——————————————————————
Conventional Cancer Treatment and The FDA (16:05)
——————————————————————
When you put some critical thought, critical analysis, you find that chemotherapy initially works
What it is, it’s a good, the first time around it’s a good tumor shrinking, they’re good tumor shrinking agents, but over the long run they create so many problems that eventually, the tumor becomes, the cells become resistant and the tumor takes over, or, if it is successful in shrinking the tumor to, to a, a size where the patient can survive, what happens after that is there’s a secondary cancer that’s created by the chemotherapy, with very few exceptions
Testicular cancer is one exception where it works
Some childhood leukemia’s they’ve had some great success with chemotherapy, but by in large it’s a failed modality, and the side effects are so bad as, as to be called horrific, uh, is how I would describe them from what I’ve seen in, in my family and in my friends, and my associates that’ve had to undergo it
So why do we allow that, when something like antineoplastons and Burzynski’s treatment, totally non-toxic, working with the body, allowing you to lead a normal life, and on it statistically for the number of people that have been treated, uh, compared to the number of people that have walked out of here in remission, or cured after 5 years; whatever definition you wanna use, we don’t allow that
We look at that as, uh, conventional medicine looks at like that as, looks at that as some sort of quackery
This is, this is, uh, critical thinking and science turned on its head, and it doesn’t make sense, and it goes back to what I was saying before
Why it doesn’t make sense, because there’s entrenched financial interests, and there’s a paradigm that says we do for cancer, we do chemotherapy, we do radiation, we do surgery, and that’s it
Anything else is not acceptable, because it goes against the paradigm

In the bureaucracy we know as the FDA
We’ve been fighting them for so long and they’ve been described as “The B Team”
“The B Team” is,that they be here when you come in and you start complaining, your problem starts, they be here, and when you decide to quit complaining because you’ve beat your head against the wall for so many years, they still be here (laugh)
So it’s “The B Team”
They’re bureaucrats
This is what they do
There, they have a certain set of tasks
Certain things that they’re tasked with
Protection of the food and drug supply of the United States, whatever that means
Whatever they deem it to mean
Whatever they decide it means
That’s what they’re gonna do, and it’s pretty hard to fight that
It’s pretty hard, unless you have a political, unless you have a, a, a, a political, ah, constituency, and you can put a lot of pressure on them
——————————————————————
So
——————————————————————
and that’s the only way
——————————————————————
So what’s the answer ?
What will, uh
How will Dr. Burzynski prevail ?
——————————————————————
Ultimately, in, in my, in my, in my view, the real tragedy is, is that he’s not going to prevail here in the United States
It’s going to be extremely difficult
It’s an uphill battle that, knowing Dr. Burzynski, he’s gonna keep fighting it, uh, and, and he’ll keep fighting that battle, but the real opportunity for him is to, uh, move this product and license it overseas, and, uh, other countries are interested
Other countries are more open, uh, to new modalities
They’re not entrenched, uh, and don’t have the financial, uh, interests, the, that are, the entrenched financial interests like we do here, like chemotherapy and, and, uh, radiation therapy, and I think that’s where ultimately we as Americans, as sad as it is, are going to have to go overseas to be treated and to get this medication

The FDA is so capricious in their decision-making, and in their exception granting, uh, that if Pat had AIDS, and this was anti-AIDS medication; proven or not or only with limited, uh, proven efficaciousness, uh, and proven limited proof that it was somewhat non-toxic, she would be able to get approval like that
The FDA has taken a drug approval process that generally takes anywhere from 10 to 15 years, and where there is political, successful political pressure applied, they have reduced that down to some cases 4 to 8 months as in the case of the anti-HIV drugs, and that’s because there is a very strong, very powerful political lobby in Washington, and throughout the country, and they have been able to apply pressure at key points in, uh, Congress
Congress puts that pressure on the FDA, says: “C’mon let’s get the ball forward
These are voting people
We have millions of people in this country with HIV who are compacted together and make a viable political force
Let’s move forward”
In the case of multiple-myeloma
In the case of these cancers or these people that wanna be treated, who have failed all conventional therapy, and wanna be treated by Dr. Burzynski with something that we know works
Something that is, is non-toxic, they, they don’t have
We’re not a viable political force
We’re not important to the Washington bureaucrats, to the Washington lawmakers
So nothing gets done, and these exceptions for the use of antineoplastons are not granted, and that’s, that’s the sad truth
======================================
Steve and Mary Jo Siegel
January 2012
22:01
11/9/2012
——————————————————————

======================================

Advertisements

Critiquing: National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc. – NCAHF News: JURY NULLIFICATION THWARTS BURZYNSKI CONVICTION

20130927-164635.jpg
3/7/2013 – “The Skeptics™'” Lynne Batik posted this article on the Colorado Public Television (CPT12) PBS Facebook page: [1]

“The trial of Stanislaw Burzynski for cancer fraud ended in a hung jury (6-6) on March 4” [2]

The problem with this statement is that there is:
——————————————————————
a) NO such thing as a “cancer fraud” law
======================================
b) – 3/3/1997 – “Lake acquitted Burzynski of 34 counts of mail … fraud” [3]
——————————————————————
c) – 3/3/1997 – “He set a May.19 retrial on the remaining charges of introducing an unapproved drug into interstate commerce and contempt of court” [3]
======================================
d) – 5/19/1997 – “A cancer doctor accused of illegally marketing an experimental drug to patients nationwide may face just a single contempt charge … [4]
——————————————————————
e) – 5/19/1997 – “Attorneys for Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski said prosecutors told them they will drop 40 of 41 remaining counts [4]

“Those charge the doctor with violating U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations in dispensing an unapproved drug [4]
——————————————————————
f) – 5/19/1997 – “Assistant U.S. Attorney Mike Clark refused to say at a pre-trial hearing Friday whether prosecutors intend to only pursue a contempt-of-court charge [4]
——————————————————————
g) – 5/19/1997 – “The contempt count accuses Burzynski of ignoring a federal judge’s orders in 1983 and 1984 against introducing the drug … into interstate commerce [4]
——————————————————————
h) – 5/19/1997 – “(Prosecutors) are telling us the only case they want to try Dr. Burzynski on is the contempt case,” defense attorney Dan Cogdell told Lake … “ [4]
——————————————————————
i) – 5/19/1997 – “He then acquitted Burzynski on 34 counts of mail fraud … “ [4]
======================================
j) – 5/19/1997 – “Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski was charged with mail fraud, contempt and violating Food and Drug Administration regulations [5]
——————————————————————
k) – 5/19/1997 – “At a hearing on Friday … prosecutors had said that they planned to try Dr. Burzynski only on the contempt charge [5]
——————————————————————
l) – 5/19/1997 – “Judge Lake acquitted him of 34 fraud counts [5]
——————————————————————
m) – 5/19/1997 – “The 41 remaining charges include 40 counts of violating F.D.A. regulations [5]
======================================
n) – 5/21/1997 – “A jury here heard opening arguments this morning in the retrial of a criminal contempt charge against a doctor who offers an unapproved cancer drug” [6]
——————————————————————
o) – 5/21/1997 – “In November 1995, Dr. Burzynski was indicted on 40 counts of interstate delivery of an unapproved drug, 34 counts of mail fraud and 1 count of contempt … “ [6]
——————————————————————
p) – 5/21/1997 – “The fraud counts said Dr. Burzynski had used the mail to send insurance claims that were false or misleading” [6]
——————————————————————
q) – 5/21/1997 – “After declaring a mistrial, Judge Simeon T. Lake 3d of the Federal District Court here issued a directed verdict of acquittal on the 34 fraud counts … “ [6]
======================================
r) – 5/28/1997 – “The charges included 40 counts of interstate delivery of an unapproved drug; 34 counts of mail fraud for using the mails to file false or misleading claims to insurers, and one count of contempt … “ [7]
——————————————————————
s) – 5/28/1997 – “Judge Simeon Lake 3d of Federal District Court declared a mistrial and then issued a directed verdict of acquittal on the counts of mail fraud … “ [7]
——————————————————————
t) – 5/28/1997 – “On the first day of the retrial, the Government moved to dismiss the 40 counts of interstate delivery against the doctor and all remaining counts against his institute, leaving only the contempt count … “ [7]
======================================
u) – 8/1/1997 – “After Burzynski’s first trial ends in a hung jury, federal prosecutors drop all charges but a single contempt-of-court citation … “ [8]
======================================
I did NOT see “cancer fraud” mentioned anywhere in those above 1997 newspaper articles
======================================
“CBS’s 48 Hours’ interviews of jurors told the tale as to why they couldn’t agree”

“Clearly, the jurors agreed that Burzynski was guilty as charged of violating court orders not to distribute his unapproved “Antineoplastons” in interstate commerce … “

If the jurors (“Clearly”) agreed that Burzynski was guilty as charged,” why is it
——————————————————————
a) – 3/3/1997 – “Prosecutors vowed to retry a self-described medical revolutionary who treats cancer patients with a compound found in human urine after a jury deadlocked … “ [3]
——————————————————————
b) – 3/3/1997 – Jurors split 6-6 on all 75 counts against Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski … “ [3]
——————————————————————
c) – 3/3/1997 – ” … Judge Lake declaired a mistrial [3]
——————————————————————
d) – 3/3/1997 – Jurors said … that they were divided from the start, and the six for acquittal never wavered [3]
——————————————————————
e) – 3/3/1997 – The big problem was intent,” explained juror Sharon Wray, 37, a legal assistant. I don’t think he woke up one day and said `I think I’ll break the law.”’ [3]
——————————————————————
f) – 3/3/1997 – Juror Darlene Phillips concurred

If we had to have decided `Did he break this law,’ probably most of us could have made that decision by noon last Monday,” Ms. Phillips said

“But the judge’s instructions went a little bit further and we had to say that he not only broke those laws, that he did it with the intent to mislead and to defraud.” [3]
======================================
g) – 5/19/1997 – “He had declared a mistrial in March when a jury deadlocked on 75 counts against the doctor [4]
======================================
h) – 5/19/1997 – “A jury deadlocked in Dr. Burzynski’s trial in March” [5]
======================================
i) – 5/21/1997 – “In February, a trial against Dr. Burzynski ended in a mistrial, with the jury deadlocked, 6 to 6 [6]
======================================
l) – 5/28/1997 – “At Dr. Burzynski’s first trial earlier this year, the jury deadlocked 6 to 6 … “ [7]
——————————————————————
m) – 5/28/1997 – I just don’t think that the state proved their case,” said one juror, Stephenie Shapiro, who is a lawyer”

”There was enough ambiguity in the document that they weren’t willing to have a criminal finding against someone

“And it was very unanimous from the beginning. It’s not like anybody had to be talked into it.‘” [7]
======================================
n) – 8/1/1997 – The jury acquits unanimously, noting that Burzynski got his staff and patients to sign waivers saying they would not send the drugs outside Texas” [8]
——————————————————————
The lesson: Do NOT believe everything you read that’s NOT backed up by citations references or links
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – 9/13/2013 A Critical Analysis of Wikipedia’s “Failure to Communicate”:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/a-critical-analysis-of-wikipedias-failure-to-communicate/
======================================
[2] – NCAHF News, March/April 1997, Volume 20, Issue #2
——————————————————————
http://www.ncahf.org/nl/1997/3-4.html
======================================
[3] – 3/3/1997 – Associated Press (A.P.) News: HOUSTON (AP)
——————————————————————
http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1997/Jury-deadlocks-retrial-planned-for-Dr-Stanislaw-Burzynski/id-58e7ec089bfad6697d138d7bfe26c011
======================================
[4] – 5/19/1997 – Associated Press (AP): Monday, May 19, 1997, Cancer doctor goes on trial again in federal court, By JOAN THOMPSON / Associated Press Writer, HOUSTON (AP)
——————————————————————
http://www.texnews.com/texas97/doc051997.html
======================================
[5] – 5/19/1997 – New York Times:
——————————————————————
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/19/us/all-charges-but-one-dropped-against-doctor.html
======================================
[6] – 5/21/1997 – New York Times: Unorthodox Doctor Goes on Trial Again on Contempt Charge, May.21, 1997
——————————————————————
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/21/us/unorthodox-doctor-goes-on-trial-again-on-contempt-charge.html
======================================
[7] – 5/28/1997 – New York Times:
——————————————————————
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/28/us/doctor-cleared-in-trial-on-unapproved-drugs.html
======================================
[8] – 8/1/1997 – Reason: Rick Henderson from the August/September 1997 issue, Assets, Sound Diagnosis: Unconventional cancer physician Stanislaw Burzynski’s 14-year battle with the FDA is over
——————————————————————
http://reason.com/archives/1997/08/01/balance-sheet
======================================