Letter to Congress – Dear CONGRESSPERSON’S NAME: My name is _(Slim Shady)_ and I am one of your constituents

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 possessionelectronic, magnetic, printed or otherwiserelating 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 ?
——————————————————————

20131209-192845.jpg
——————————————————————
“All you have to do is to read Saul Green’s reports on Quackwatch and in The Cancer Letter from the 1990s” [10]
——————————————————————
12/2002Interview [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 ?

20131209-234700.jpg
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. 1/9/1997government 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”
——————————————————————
9/8/1993Public 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):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/how-to-crank-your-congressperson-according-to-the-skeptics-usa-today-vs-dr-stanislaw-burzynski/
======================================
[2] – 2/4/1998Dr. Ralph MossGovernment 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] – 9/18/2013Online News Association
——————————————————————
http://journalists.org/2013/09/18/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:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/httpscienceblogs-cominsolence20131118eric-merola-and-stanislaw-burzynski-respond-to-the-fda-findings-and-the-usa-today-story-hilarity-ensues/
======================================
[10] – 6/4/2013Stanislaw 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):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/12/httpwww-cancerinform-orgaburzinterview-html/
======================================
[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:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/12/04/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:
——————————————————————
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/22/us/trial-of-houston-doctor-linked-to-unapproved-drugs-goes-to-jury.html
======================================
[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] – 6/1997Burzynski 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
——————————————————————
http://www.praktikosinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/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)
——————————————————————
http://www.src-project.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/ussc_report_publiccorruption_19930908.pdf
======================================

Advertisements

Critiquing: Watford Observer – ‘He said he hoped to cure my daughter’

6/7/2013 the Watford Observer published this article By Kathryn Snowdon [1]

“The mother of Luna Petagine has cast doubt on the expensive treatment the family sought in America during the Oxhey girl’s four-year battle with cancer
——————————————————————
Expensive treatment,” based on what objective criteria ? [2]
——————————————————————
BBC Panorama this week aired an investigation into Doctor Stanislaw Burzynski’s cancer clinic in Texas, where hundreds of children – normally terminally ill – go and seek treatment”

“Luna, who was five-years-old when she died last year, was a patient at The Burzynski Clinic after her parents were told the physician could cure their daughter, despite Great Ormond Street Hospital doctors saying little more could be done for her”
——————————————————————
Why the conflicting statements ?

a) “her parents were told the physician could cure their daughter”

b) “The NHS are telling me my daughter’s going to die and this man is telling me that he thinks he can cure her.”

c) “He said he hoped to cure my daughter

d) “The plan was to try and cure Luna.”
——————————————————————
Luna’s mother, Lucy Petagine, of Raglan Gardens, said there was no doubt in her mind she was going to send her daughter to Dr Burzynski

“Mrs Petagine said:”

“Of course I’m going to go with him

If anyone had knocked on my door and said

‘here if you try this it will work’

“then yeah I would have tried it because I was in desperation”

“The NHS are telling me my daughter’s going to die and this man is telling me that he thinks he can cure her.”

“Mrs Petagine added:”

“It was all about hope

He said he hoped to cure my daughter

The plan was to try and cure Luna.”

“In order to finance the treatment, which the family believed could be life-saving, more than £100,000 was raised and in September 2011 they travelled to America”

“However, Mrs Petagine said the treatment at The Burzynski Clinic was actually killing her daughter

“She added:”

The treatment was – what was happening – was actually killing Luna because it put this pressure on her brain stem.”
——————————————————————
Why did Mrs Petagine say that “the treatment at The Burzynski Clinic”“was actually killing Luna” ?

Did someone tell her this, or was this her personal opinion ?

We know from Burzynski’s 3/2004 publication that:

“The reason for 50% Progressive Disease (PD) in studies is long dose-escalation process, which extends to more than a month’s time period, before the optimal dosage is reached” [3]
——————————————————————
“In response to Panorama’s questioning and claims that he was merely selling hope to vulnerable families, Dr Burzynski said:”

“Can you imagine that the US government… they would allow me to be here if I just sell hope?”
——————————————————————
Isn’t every cancer treatment “selling hope to vulnerable families”?

Isn’t every cancer clinical trial “selling hope to vulnerable families” ?
——————————————————————
“The treatment has not been approved by the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
——————————————————————
12/2008 – Burzynski’s publication advised:

“In 2004 the FDA granted orphan drug designation for antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 for the treatment of brainstem glioma” [4]

9/2012“The FDA granted Orphan Drug designation for Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 for the treatment of gliomas, in 2009″ [5]
——————————————————————
“A month into Luna’s therapy, an MRI revealed the tumour had grown, pressing on Luna’s brain stem and causing her breathing problems and facial palsy”

Mrs Petagine said:”

“They said the tumour’s grown and we were like ‘how could it have grown this quickly, this doesn’t make sense’.”
——————————————————————
What does Mrs Petagine mean when she said:

‘how could it have grown this quickly, this doesn’t make sense’ ?

We know from [3] above, that the tumor is likely to grow before the medicine has reached it’s optimal dosage, and the tumor starts to decrease in size
——————————————————————
Luna had to be admitted to intensive care in Texas Children’s Hospital

Mrs Petagine said:”

Texas Children’s hate The Burzynski Clinic

“They said they have to clean up all his mess”

“The second you walk in the door they look at your child and they did actually say to us ‘are you a Burzynski family?’”
——————————————————————
If Texas Children’s actually does that with every child patient that comes in the door, that would be a really stupid bias to foist on some unsuspecting parent
——————————————————————
“Luna died in August last year”
——————————————————————
Unfortunately, the article does not tell the reader what happened ?

Was Luna taken off of antineoplaston therapy?

Or was she still on the treatment when she unfortunately passed ?
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – 9:50am Friday 7th June 2013, By Kathryn Snowdon
——————————————————————
http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/10470494.print/
======================================
[2] – 9/22/2013 – Critiquing Wikipedia: Burzynski Clinic – 2013 BBC documentary, Curing cancer or ‘selling hope’ to the vulnerable?
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/22/critiquing-wikipedia-burzynski-clinic-2013-bbc-documentary-curing-cancer-or-selling-hope-to-the-vulnerable/
======================================
[3] – Review Articles on Clinical Trials:

1. 3/2004 – The Present State of Antineoplaston Research
——————————————————————
Integrative Cancer Therapies 2004;3:47-58
Volume 3, No. 1, March 2004

DOI: 10.1177/1534735-403261964

Volume 3 Number 1.March.2004

Pg. 50
——————————————————————
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/994.pdf
======================================
[4] – 12/2008 – Patil, S., Burzynski, S., Chittur, S., Mrowczynski, E., Grela, K. The ingredients of antineoplaston AS2-1 down-regulate glycolysis pathways in glioblastoma cells. Neuro-Oncology 2008; 10:1148

Volume 10 Issue 6.December.2008
——————————————————————
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/7897.pdf
======================================
[5] – 9/2012 – Patil, S., Burzynski S.R., Mrowczynski, E., Grela, K. P.003. Phenylacetylglutaminate in combination with Phenylbutyrate effectively inhibits growth of brain tumor cell In Vitro. Neuro-Oncology 2012;14(Suppl. 3):iii16

Volume 14 Supplement 3 September 2012
——————————————————————
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/9291.pdf
======================================

[8] – 1993 (10/26/1993) – Burzynski to Dr. Michael A. Friedman

This page is linked to:
=====================================
Critiquing: Dr. Michael A. Friedman, Dr. Mark G. Malkin, Dr. Mario Sznol, Robert B. Lanman, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Mayo Clinic, Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), Public Health Service, Quality Assurance and Compliance Section, Regulatory Affairs Branch (RAB), Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP), Division of Cancer Treatment (DCT), National Cancer Center (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Stanislaw Burzynski: On the arrogance of ignorance about cancer and targeted therapies
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/critiquing-stanislaw-burzynski-on-the-arrogance-of-ignorance-about-cancer-and-targeted-therapies/
======================================
[8] – 1993 (10/26/1993) – Burzynski to Dr. Michael A. Friedman
——————————————————————
Dear Dr. Friedman,

In response to your letter of 10/20/1993, it is difficult for me to understand why the entire 1st page of your letter is used to discuss the simplest issue:

that adults should use a different dosage than that used for children

Since you agreed to the study procedure of Protocol BT-6 as recommended in my letter of 6/9/1993, we have not requested any changes in the structure of treatment which was accepted by Memorial-Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC)

As you confirmed in your letter of 10/20/1993, you know very well that since 4/1/1993 of this year my recommended dosage of Antineoplaston AS2-1 for adults is 0.4g/kg/24h

Again, I confirmed that this is the right dosage for adults in my letter to Dr. Shoemaker of 8/24/1993

Yet, for no apparent reason, you insist on using in the adult treatment protocol the dosage 0.6g/kg/24h which I recommend for children

It is generally known that a child’s body weight is much lower than that of adults

This should be reflected in the escalation of the dosages

My recommendation as to how to escalate the dosages for adults was submitted to the NCI on 6/4/1992

Yet, for no apparent reason the MSKCC protocol, which is designed for adults, escalates the dosages in the small increments recommended for children

The principle behind dose escalation is to accomplish the maximum dosage in 3 to 5 days, not 3 to 4 weeks, which would expose the patient to the unnecessary risk of tumor progression

I appreciate very much that you have finally decided to follow my recommendation regarding dosage and dosage escalation

Regarding the number of patients to be treated at MSKCC, the contradictory, incomplete, and inconsistent information is being supplied by you

The MSKCC’s protocol of 4/16/1993, 7/13/1993, and 8/30/1993 describe the treatment of 35,

Pg. 2

but not 70 patients

(please see paragraph 12.1, pg. 10 of the protocol, which is attached)

It was our understanding that 35 patients would be treated at MSKCC and at the Mayo Clinic

I never agreed for the treatment of 70 patients at MSKCC

Since I have to produce the medicine for the trial and pay for it, it is vitally important to me to know how many patients will be treated

The treatment of an additional 35 patients may cost up to 2 million dollars

Contrary to the information given by NCI that we received the money for the production of medicine, this money went apparently into a “black hole”

(“Black Holism,” The Village Voice, 7/29/1993, enclosed)

We have received none of the money which the Office of Alternative Medicine gave to the NCI for funding the trials with our medicine

Contrary to the opinion expressed in your letter, we see no reason for modifying Fleming’s Phase II clinical trial design and introducing more stringent than usual criteria for response evaluation

We request that Fleming’s original design be used, which calls for the initial treatment of 15 patients with at least one responder, instead of 20 patients and 2 responders

Given the fact that there is no existing treatment effective in this type of cancer, one responder in 15 is certainly significant and would be reason enough to expand the trial

I found your your requirement for 14 days to complete scans and laboratory tests prior to treatment very interesting

It is a very well known fact that glioblastoma multiforme is such an active tumor that if 2 weeks elapses from the time of the scan and the beginning of treatment, the tumor may increase by more than 50%

This means that even before the patient begins treatment, he can be classified as an increasing disease case

In most of the hospitals in the U.S., including out tiny clinic, all pretreatment tests including the scans can be done in one day

Therefore, I insist that the pretreatment evaluation, including brain scans, be done within 7 days from the time treatment begins

Regarding the Karnofsky Performance Status (PS), it is unclear to me why you have backed off from your own recommendation in your letter of 5/5/1993 (copy attached) that “patients with Karnofsky PS of below 70% should be excluded”

I am requesting that as recommended by NCI, the patient’s PS should be 70% to 100%

I agree that both scan data and neurological assessment can be described in the analysis of response, but the decision of how to classify response should be based on tumor measurements alone

All of these patients will have been extensively treated before

As the result of previous neurotoxic treatments, a number of these patients will deteriorate neurologically even if the Antineoplastons eradicate the

Pg. 3

tumor

The purpose of the protocol is to evaluate the antitumor effect, not to prove that Antineoplastons can repair brain damage resulting from chemotherapy and radiation

In this 1st independent study with Antineoplastons, in order to assure that patients will derive the most benefit from the treatment, it is critically important to schedule more frequent evaluations of the data than waiting until after the accrual of 14 patients, i.e. waiting 9 months

(Based on an accrual of 2 patients per month, if we wait until 14 patients are accrued and treated, 9 months will pass before the 1st evaluation takes place)

Therefore, I request that reviews of the studies be performed after the treatment of each group of 5 patients, i.e. after 6 months

I agree, however, that you will provide the Theradex printout to us as you receive it

In addition to patient welfare, there is another reason for more frequent patient evaluations

As you stated in your letter, I have no doubt that the investigators at MSKCC have extensive experience treating glioma

However, MSKCC is known to be biased against Antineoplastons

At least 3 researchers associated with MSKCC published willful misrepresentations and distortions about Antineoplaston research

Because of the controversial nature of the upcoming Antineoplaston clinical trials, it is essential that they are conducted in a manner beyond any suspicion of bias

Contrary to the opinion expressed in your letter, NCI is responsible for the trial’s delay

As you well know, the NCI selected an MSKCC investigator in 9/1992

In spite of our repeated requests, 8 months were waisted before the NCI produced the 1st draft of the protocol

As promised in my letter to you of 11/11/1992, the supply of Antineoplastons has been prepared and was shown to Ms. Mary McCabe of NCI during the site visit on 2/9/1993

The medicine was ready to be released pending final approval approval of the labels by the FDA and our final QC inspection

The medicine will be sent to you immediately once you make the corrections to the protocol that we have requested

Since you mentioned that patient recruitment has begun already, I would be glad to accept these patients immediately under my care and offer them free medicine as we wait for the protocol to be revised and the treatment at MSKCC to begin

The MSKCC protocol in its current form would threaten the welfare of these patients

In your letter you stated that your mission is to find and develop better therapies for cancer patients, and that your only obligation is to those patients

However, the way

Pg. 4

you proceed leads me to question that for the following reasons:

1) Out of numerous cancer treatment centers, you selected 2:

MSKCC and Mayo Clinic, which are known to be strongly biased against alternative treatments

In the past doctors associated with MSKCC have voiced strong opposition to Antineoplaston therapy and have published articles full of misrepresentations and distortions

2) The protocol approved by you will allow the disease to progress between the pretreatment evaluation and the beginning of treatment

3) Due to the slow escalation of dosages, patients will most likely have marked increase of tumor size beginning the treatment at the correct dosage level

4) In spite of my numerous requests (letters of 4/29/1993, 6/9/1993, and 8/24/1993) to proceed following the guidelines of the NCI’s Decision Network on 12/2/1991 to have a separate clinical trial for glioblastoma multiforme and anaplastic astrocytoma, you continue to combine both types of tumors together

Even in your most recent stratification strategy submitted to the FDA, you are planning to treat initially 20 patients without specifying whether those 20 patients are per each stratum (glioblastoma vs. anaplastic astrocytoma), or whether this initial group of 20 patients consist of a mixture of glioblastoma and anaplastic astrocytoma

If the latter is the case, then we can expect that among these 1st 20 patients, most will have glioblastoma, which is more common and more difficult to treat

In case of treatment failure in these 20 patients, it will be easy to make the statement that Antineoplastons do not have therapeutic effect in both tumor categories

5) The protocol now states in paragraph 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4 that the objective decrease of tumor size is not enough to be considered a true response to treatment, that there must also be improvement in neurological function

As I explained in my letter of 10/13/1993 to Dr. Greenblatt, it is not unusual in my practice to see patients whose tumor has disappeared, but who have deteriorated neurologically as the result of delayed toxicity from radiation therapy and chemotherapy

Since these patients in the MSKCC study have been pretreated, and since there has been no indication that anything, including Antineoplastons, can repair brain damage caused by chemotherapy and radiation, I request that the criteria including restored neurological functioning be removed from paragraphs 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4 of the protocol

Pg, 5

6) Finally, by limiting our access to the data and not allowing review until after the 1st 14 patients have been treated, it would be easy to deviate from the protocol and supply inadequate treatment, and then claim that due to the the failure of the 1st 14 patients it would be a waste of the taxpayers money to proceed with further treatment

Your final statements that you are ready to proceed with the treatment with Antineoplastons without our participation caught me by surprise

It is hard to imagine that a Federal employee would consider patent infringement, thus infringing on the patent rights of thousands of our shareholders

Once again, I urge you to take our requests seriously, honor the guidelines of the NCI’s Decision Network on 12/2/1991, and make proper corrections to the protocol, so that objective clinical studies can begin immediately

In the meantime, I would be glad to treat for free all the patients presently recruited, and will submit progress reports weekly for the NCI’s review and evaluation

SRB/cf

cc:

Senator Joseph Biden
Senator Barbara Boxer
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Senator Tom Harkin
Senator Barbara Mikulski
Congressman Berkley Bedell
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi
Dr. Samuel Broder
Dr. Jan Buckner
Dr. Bruce Chabner
Dr. Daniel Eskinazi
Dr. Jay Greenblatt
Dr. Joseph Jacobs
Dr. Mark Malkin
Ms. Mary McCabe
Dr. David Parkinson
Dr. Mario Sznol
Ms. Dorothy Tisevich
======================================

======================================
1993 (10/26/1993) – SRB to [5]
1993 (10/26/1993) – SRB to [14]
1991 (12/2/1991) – guidelines of the NCI’s Decision Network [5 Pgs.]
1992 (6/4/1992) Burzynski to NCI
1992 (9/1992) – NCI selected MSKCC investigator
1992 (11/11/1992) – Burzynski to Dr. Michael A. Friedman
1993 (2/9/1993) – NCI Mary McCabe site visit
1993 (4/1/1993) –
1993 (4/16/1993) – MSKCC protocol
1993 (4/29/1993) – Burzynski to
to proceed following the guidelines of the NCI’s Decision Network on 12/2/1991
1993 (5/5/1993) – Dr. Michael A. Friedman to Burzynski
1993 (6/9/1993) – Burzynski to
to proceed following the guidelines of the NCI’s Decision Network on 12/2/1991
1993 (7/13/1993) – MSKCC protocol
1993 (7/29/1993) – “Black Holism,” The Village Voice
1993 (8/24/1993) – Burzynski to Dr. Dale Shoemaker
to proceed following the guidelines of the NCI’s Decision Network on 12/2/1991
1993 (8/30/1993) – MSKCC protocol
1993 (10/20/1993) – Dr. Michael A. Friedman to Burzynski
======================================

Critiquing: Aetna: Antineoplaston Therapy and Sodium Phenylbutyrate

[1] – Aetna, Clinical Policy Bulletin: Number: 0240 Policy claims:

Aetna considers antineoplaston therapy (auto-urine therapy) and associated medical services experimental and investigational because there is insufficient evidence published in the peer-reviewed medical literature validating the effectiveness of antineoplaston therapy for any indication“
====================================
Interestingly, the above “claim” does NOT provide any specific citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support this claim

[2] – “auto-urine therapy” is generally defined as using one’s own urine, drinking urine, etc., which is NOT what “antineoplaston therapy” is, according to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
——————————————————————
[3] – 10/4/1991 – Five doctors (3 from the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Branch (CTEP); including the Head of the Quality Assurance and Compliance Section, Regulatory Affairs Branch, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Department of Health &Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, and 2 invited consultants; including one from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Center) visited the offices of Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski
——————————————————————
[4] – 10/31/1991 – Michael A. Friedman, M.D. Associate Director, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP), Department of Health &Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, sent a one page Memorandum to Bruce A. Chabner, M.D., Director, Division of Cancer Treatment, which stated, in part:

“I thought you would be interested in this for several reasons:”

“3. Antineoplastons deserve a closer look”

“It turns out that the agents are well defined, pure chemical entities
=======================================
=======================================
“The human brain tumor responses are real”

20130911-102213.jpg
=======================================
[5] – 11/15/1991 – Michael J. Hawkins, M.D., Chief, Investigational Drug Branch, Department of Health &Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, sent a 7 page letter to Decision Network, which stated, in part, on page one:
=======================================
=======================================
“It was the opinion of the site visit team that antitumor activity was documented in this best case series … “

20130911-122216.jpg
=======================================
[6] – 12/2/91 – NCI (National Cancer Institute), Decision Network Report on Antineoplastons, states in part, on page 11:

20130911-134634.jpg
=======================================
“The site visit team determined that antitumor activity was documented in this best case series … “
=======================================
=======================================
[7] – CANCER FACTS
National Cancer Institute • National Institutes of Health Department of Health and Human Services, Antineoplastons, pg. 1

=======================================
=======================================
“The reviewers of this series found evidence of antitumor activity … “

20130911-094155.jpg
=======================================
[8] – Page 1 of 6, BlueCross BlueShield of Alabama, Antineoplaston Cancer Therapy, Policy #: 280, Category: Medicine, states, in part, on page 2 of 6:

Key Points:
=======================================
=======================================
“The reviewers of this series found evidence of antitumor activity … “
=======================================
=======================================
[9] – ANTINEOPLASTON THERAPY, HS-183, pg. 2
=======================================
=======================================
“After the reviewers found some evidence of antitumor activity … “
=======================================
=======================================
These facts indicate to me that Aetna’s claim about “antineoplastons”, is “debatable”

Maybe they should have learned how to use the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
=======================================
REFERENCES:
=======================================
[1]
——————————————————————
http://www.aetna.com/cpb/medical/data/200_299/0240.html
=======================================
[2]
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.gov/topics/CAM/antineoplastons/Patient
——————————————————————
http://cancer.gov/topics/CAM/antineoplastons/Patient
——————————————————————
http://cancer.gov/topics/CAM/antineoplastons/Patient?print=1
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.gov/topics/CAM/antineoplastons/Patient?print=1
=======================================
[7]
——————————————————————
http://www.emory.edu/KomenEd/PDF/Treatment/Antineoplastons.pdf
=======================================
[8]
——————————————————————
https://www.bcbsal.org/providers/policies/final/280.pdf
=======================================
[9]
——————————————————————
https://www.wellcare.com/WCAssets/corporate/assets/HS183_Antineoplaston_Therapy.pdf
=======================================

Critiquing: Cancer Research UK What we know about antineoplastons

[1] – Cancer Research UK claims:

“Some people promote antineoplaston therapy as a cancer treatment

“But available scientific evidence does not support claims that antineoplaston therapy is effective in treating or preventing cancer

” Although Dr Burzynski’s own clinic have reported positive results for these trials, no other researchers have been able to show that this type of treatment helps to treat cancer
====================================
Interestingly, the above “claim” does NOT provide any specific citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support this claim
——————————————————————
[2] – 10/4/1991 – Five doctors (3 from the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Branch (CTEP); including the Head of the Quality Assurance and Compliance Section, Regulatory Affairs Branch, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Department of Health &Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, and 2 invited consultants; including one from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Center) visited the offices of Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski
——————————————————————
[3] – 10/31/1991 – Michael A. Friedman, M.D. Associate Director, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP), Department of Health &Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, sent a one page Memorandum to Bruce A. Chabner, M.D., Director, Division of Cancer Treatment, which stated, in part:

“I thought you would be interested in this for several reasons:”

“3. Antineoplastons deserve a closer look”

“It turns out that the agents are well defined, pure chemical entities
=======================================
=======================================
“The human brain tumor responses are real”

20130911-102213.jpg
=======================================
[4] – 11/15/1991 – Michael J. Hawkins, M.D., Chief, Investigational Drug Branch, Department of Health &Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, sent a 7 page letter to Decision Network, which stated, in part, on page one:
=======================================
=======================================
“It was the opinion of the site visit team that antitumor activity was documented in this best case series … “

20130911-122216.jpg
=======================================
[5] – 12/2/91 – NCI (National Cancer Institute), Decision Network Report on Antineoplastons, states in part, on page 11:
=======================================
=======================================
“The site visit team determined that antitumor activity was documented in this best case series … “

20130911-134634.jpg
=======================================
[6] – CANCER FACTS
National Cancer Institute • National Institutes of Health Department of Health and Human Services, Antineoplastons, pg. 1

=======================================
=======================================
“The reviewers of this series found evidence of antitumor activity … “

20130911-094155.jpg
=======================================
[7] – Page 1 of 6, BlueCross BlueShield of Alabama, Antineoplaston Cancer Therapy, Policy #: 280, Category: Medicine, states, in part, on page 2 of 6:

Key Points:
=======================================
=======================================
“The reviewers of this series found evidence of antitumor activity … “
=======================================
=======================================
[8] – ANTINEOPLASTON THERAPY, HS-183, pg. 2
=======================================
=======================================
“After the reviewers found some evidence of antitumor activity … “
=======================================
=======================================
These facts indicate to me that Cancer Research UK’s claim about “antineoplastons”, is “debatable”

Maybe they should have learned how to use the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
=======================================
REFERENCES:
=======================================
[1]
——————————————————————
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/about-cancer/cancer-questions/what-is-antineoplaston-therapy
=======================================
[6]
——————————————————————
http://www.emory.edu/KomenEd/PDF/Treatment/Antineoplastons.pdf
=======================================
[7]
——————————————————————
https://www.bcbsal.org/providers/policies/final/280.pdf
=======================================
[8]
——————————————————————
https://www.wellcare.com/WCAssets/corporate/assets/HS183_Antineoplaston_Therapy.pdf
=======================================
Burzynski: Japan antineoplaston publications:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/burzynski-japan/
=======================================
Burzynski: China antineoplaston publications:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-china-antineoplaston-publications/
=======================================