Dana-Farber Cancer Board Member discusses Dr. Burzynski, Antineoplastons, & Industry

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Board of Directors Member James Rappaport discusses Dr. Burzynski and The Cancer Industry
“When you look at what is going on and how Dr. Burzynski’s being handled, it is clearly a function of, (?), anytime you have big business, big government, big labor, Big Pharma, Big Cancer Industry, whatever, they become so, wrapped up in protecting the institution; whatever it is, that they forget what their fundamental job is, you know, and what’s happened with Big Pharma and, and Big Cancer, is they kinda, you know, they’ve forgotten to be curious that there might be other op, opportunities and options out there, and they’re focused on protecting their turf”
00:41 – Peer-review chauvinism
“Most of the stuff is peer-reviewed, in order to get into, the starting gate, of their process”

“Well, if you’re all of the peers, are vested in one piece of the business, something new, is frightening, and is not going to be given the same shot, as something that’s within the construct of what they’re used to”

“That’s the problem, uh, and the idea that something different; less catastrophic to the body, um, could possibly, uh, work, would upset all of their training, all of their thinking, and, it, it’s very hard for them to, to to do that”
01:24 – The anointed Evangelical Guardians of the Status Quo
“The doctors I know and, and the clinicians I know, and, and these people are evangelical”

“I mean, they are hugely, vested and invested, in doing what they believe is very important and good work”

“It helps them get up in the morning, to go to work”

“So, folks who are, invested that kind of, uh, you know, zealous way, you know, are going to look at anything that isn’t within that, that, that, that vision, you know, they’re going to look askance at it”

“They’re going to look at, say that, that, that’s really weird, or, that’s a charlatan”

“What they were in essence saying is, that if you do, the Burzynski treatment regimen, you are foregoing the treatments that we know and understand, and thus we can’t, guarantee that you’re going to have a success”

“Well, you can’t guarantee that you’re going to have a success with chemotherapy, or the normal regimens of chemotherapy

“So, they came from a place of saying: ‘We are protecting you from going down and taking a, uh, the placebo approach,’ which is the way they look at it”

“The fact that it’s been effective, and the fact that, uh, you know, when you go through the numbers, uh, and the analysis, and you go through, uh, that if you’ve not gone through chemotherapy, and you go through the Burzynski’s treatment your odds are 2 or 3 times as high, even if you have gone through chemotherapy it’s 1 or 2 times as high”

“You know, those are, un, those are high enough numbers to push the needle, and, oh by the way, it’s less expensive, than Big Pharma
02:56 – Protecting the business at all costs
“Which is another big piece”

Big Pharma is protecting a huge, multi-billion dollar business, and they’re going to protect it to the death, even, to the adverse impact of patient outcomes”

“They won’t say it that way, and, but that fact of the matter is, if you’ve got an approach out here which could be significantly, less costly, and significantly less adversely impact-full, to the patient, um, then you’re gonna, um, you, you, you can understand why they’re, to doing”

“You don’t have to agree with it, but you can at least understand why they’re taking the position that they’re taking”
03:34 – The fiber of an innovator’s background
“I think that what is amazing is that Dr. Burzynski has had a vision, and a passion, and a zeal, for 40-odd years, put up with being called everything, short of, and probably even including ‘Witch Doctor,’ um, because of his firm belief that he can save people’s lives, and, and what that says about his character and his just his, the fiber of his backbone, to, um, to be willing to take that on”

“You know, you’re talking about a man who spent the last 40 years, um, you know, working on, on a different form of treatment that is more patient friendly, than chemotherapy

“You know, I explain to people about, you know, what chemotherapy is”

“What chemotherapy is, is putting poison in your body”

“Killing everything that is fast-growing in your body”

“Starting first with cancer cells”

“Then next with white-blood cells”

“Then with your hair”

“Then with your, you know, the inside lining of your mouth”

“Um, then your fingernails”

“I mean, you know, that, that’s what it’s meant to do, and what you essentially do is you give this chemotherapy to, as much as a person can take, uh, uh, uh, in order to, you know, in, in, in order to get out the other end where’ve you’ve killed cancer and hopeful not everybody else or the patient”

“That’s what it is”

“So, if you’ve got a different approach, which is, essentially is saying, well, you know, we’re not, we’re gonna go in and stop the cancer cells from growing and we’re going to actually, and, uh and work on shrinking them, without the ancillary effects, is pretty powerful, you know, and, uh, and you would think that, that, that, the Big Cancer Industry would say: ‘That’s something we outta be looking at'”

Burzynski needs to be given the right to prove the efficacy of his treatment, and if he can, uh, show that his treatments are as or more effective, and / or, significantly better for the patient, with better patient outcomes and, and limited side effects, he’s gotta be given that opportunity to compete out in the marketplace”

“That’s what America’s about”
12/4/2013Jim Rappaport, Board Member of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute discusses Dr. Burzynski and the obstacles he faces within a Cancer Ind (5:49)


Wikipedia or Wikipediantic ? – wants your 3 pounds of flesh (WikiPEEdia, UR all INe)

[WP:SOP] Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then. 7.”)

Due & undue weight: [3]

“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant & should not be considered,”

[WP:NPOV] “History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note 3)

(Neutral Point of View)
MEANING: It is meaningless to attempt to slather your biased OPINION all over Wikipedia like butter on Texas toast, since supposedly, we only care about verifiable FACTS
Wikipedia, what the problem is ?

Jimmy Donal Wales

Who ?

No, “The Who” is actually really British !

(as opposed to some “furreigner” who plops across the pond, wants to pound one of your pelts after a celebrity hunt, pops it in his bonnet, pip-pips about, and mounts it up on his rented wall along with what’s left of his balls)

I’m writing, of course, about “Jimbo,” the one who got away . . . Thankfully

The recipient of the write-up earlier this year in The New York Times [1] (Oh, pithy !!)
Wales, who no longer runs the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia

“He applies his libertarian worldview to the Internet and has taken on institutions like the United States government
You must be bloody well right joking me

(joking me ? Quit jokin’ me !)

JimCrow’s ’bout as “libertarian” as Fidel Castro with a gun in his hand and (f)lies between his teeth; from traveling with the windows down

Stephen Colbert shoulda seen that comin’ from a 8 mile away

Hey Stephen, Report’ THAT !!!
“He grew up in Huntsville, Ala., the son of a teacher and a retail man
And obviously, he didn’t “learnt” well

I think a refund’s in order

And here’s your free school Insolence to go with it

Happy eat in’

It is claimed that “HE” spends time:
“traveling the world giving talks on free speech and Internet freedom
seriously ?

Seriously ??


Welcome to MizFitTV

What would “Jymboree” know about “free speech” and “Internet freedom,“ anyway ?

How many days did you serve your country in the United States military ?

Oh, you did NOT realize that while you were in San Diego, you could have signed that contract ?

After all, he’s no Vincent Kennedy McMahon”
(“HE” knows where “HIS” GRAPEFRUITS are)
“B.D.F.L., or the Benevolent Dictator for Life”
How ’bout:

Loser ?
Argumentum ad Jimbonem” means dutifully following what Wales says, but there are even arguments about that”
WP:NICETRY, but that’s “SHEEPLE”
“One Wikipedia editor said, for instance, that Wales was no longer comfortable with the B.D.F.L. description”
Jiminy Cricket !

Whazzamatta Jiminy?

Did “FASCIST” hit a bit too close to home ?
“(There is, among some, a debate over what to call him)”

“Some users have also disputed the Latinized version of “Jimbo.”

“(Should it be “Jimboni” or “Jimbini”?)”
Can you smell what “The Rock” is cookin’ ?

La-La-La-La-Laaaaaaawwww, JIMBRONI !!!!!!!

Get ready, and bend over, ’cause I’m gonna shine this thing up, turn it sideways, and shove it straight up your Candy AstroTurf hatch
Introduction (statement of principles) [WP:SOP]

“This is a statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then”
(Or if you go by The New York Times article, [1] Jimbroni is the co-founder” who tries to re-write history to make it appear that “HE” is the one-and-only Fascist Founder ?)
“I should point out that these are my principles, such that I am the final judge of them”

This does not mean that I will not listen to you, but it does mean that at some ultimate, fundamental level, this is how Wikipedia will be run”
No, actually, it DOES mean that he will NOT listen to you, as was the case when he ignored my 2/7/2013 appeal

In his defense, perhaps Kate Garvey has his balls

1. “Wikipedia’s success to date is entirely a function of our open community”

“This community will continue to live and breathe and grow only so long as those of us who participate in it continue to Do The Right Thing

Doing The Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the neutral point of view policy and for a culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty
The problem with this Wacky Tobacky “We are the (Wiki) World” WikiWhOReD Wonderland Jimbroni’s living in, is that “HE” has NOT been Doing The Right Thing since “HE” abdicated “his” “neutral point of view policy” and “culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty,” to “The Skeptics”

“The Skeptics,” who serve as gatekeepers of the Burzynski Clinic article, and who cite Dr. David H. Gorski a/k/a “Orac” aka GorskGeek as if he were a “reliable source”

“The Skeptics,” who bring new meaning to the term “Wikipedia Zero”

“The Skeptics,” who are Intellectual Cowards like their false god Gorski, the Closet Communist of Science-Based Medicine a/k/a Science-Basted Medicine aka Science-Based Mudicine (Spinning Bowel Movement), Wiki Wordsmith Wannabes, nut-jobbers, stale from their failure at the National Peanut Festival in Dothan, Alabama
3. ““You can edit this page right now” is a core guiding check on everything that we do”

“We must respect this principle as sacred”
Do the lies just dribble off your chin like phlegm?

You canNOT just go in and “edit” the Burzynski Clinic article “page right now”

That statement is pure, unadulterated Alabama B.S.

That’s NOT a “sacred principle,” it’s sacré “bull”
7. “Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity”
Unfortunately, you do NOT practice what you preach, do you, HYPOCRITE ?
“They should be encouraged constantly to present their problems in a constructive way”
So that you can ignore the problem(s), right, Jimbroni ?
“Anyone who just complains without foundation, refusing to join the discussion, should simply be rejected and ignored”
THAT would automatically exclude all of “The Skeptics” now, wouldn’t it ?
“We must not let the “squeaky wheel” be greased just for being a jerk
Jimbroni, why have you allowed “The Skeptics” to choose from their “squeaky” wheel-house bag o’ tricks, get all “greased” up and jerk” so many people around in such a big CIRCLE-JERK, for so long?
8. “Diplomacy consists of combining honesty and politeness

“Both are objectively valuable moral principles”

“Be honest with me, but don’t be mean to me”

“Don’t misrepresent my views for your own political ends, and I’ll treat you the same way”
“Honesty” and “politeness” are really great buzzwords,” Jimbroni, but they are as foreign to your “Skeptics,” as “moral principles”
A great example of the questionable “honesty” and “moral principles” of one of your apparatchiks, was demonstrated 2/3/2013, 6:56, when I sent an arbitration appeal e-mail to Wikipedia, advising, in part, that the e-mail listed on Wikipedia; as the one that blocked users should use, did NOT work, because there was NO “@” sign in it

There was a . (period) where the “@” sign belonged


2/3/2013, 8:11 AM, Anthony (AGK) BASC

“Everything you have said in that e-mail demonstrates a misunderstanding or misreading of Wikipedia policy”


Check the “time” and “place” where you are, so that you, too, can advise, that according to Wikipedia, pointing out to them that the e-mail they advise people to use, DOES NOT WORK; because there is no “@” sign in it (instead, there’s a . (period)), translates into meaning:
“Everything you have said in that e-mail demonstrates a misunderstanding or misreading of Wikipedia policy”
Core principles

Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset [WP:SR]

Wikipedia does not have its own views, or determine what is “correct”
I wish I could LIE like that, but I have a conscience
12/24/2012, Monday – 3:52 pm – 21:52 (UTC) –
“We are told that 2013 will be a big year, but apparently his plan is to release another bullshit movie not to publish useful research”

[User Talk:JzG|Guy] ([User JzG/help|Help!]) [2]

“Bullshit movie” ?

Does anyone other than me NOT think it a “coinkydink” that some “Guy” on Wikipedia, going by the name “Guy”, using the same 2 words (“Bullshit movie”) as a “Guy” on Twitter ?
2. Founding principles:

“Neutrality is mandatory . . . “
I call B.S.

Neutrality is mandatory,” EXCEPT on the Burzynski Clinic article, controlled by “The Skeptics”
4. “Ignore all rules (IAR):”

“Rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone”
Especially when Jimbroni allows “The Skeptics”
to “dictator” the “rules”
“The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule

“The common purpose of building an encyclopedia trumps both”

“This means that any rule can be broken for a very good reason, if it ultimately helps to improve the encyclopedia”
And “The Skeptics” are NOT required to provide ANY reason for having broken “any rule”
“It doesn’t mean that anything can be done just by claiming IAR, or that discussion is not necessary to explain one’s decision”
But do NOT expect Wikipedia to require anything from The Skeptics”
Founding principles

1. “Neutral point of view (NPOV) as a mandatory editorial principle”
EXCEPT when it comes to the Burzynski Clinic article
12/26/2012 – I attempted to get Wikipedia to reference the interview which Burzynski’s attorney, Richard (Rick) A. Jaffe, and Lola Quinlan’s attorney; who posted it on his web-site, had given: [4]

Please add re WP:NPOV that Burzynski’s attorney, Richard Jaffe has disputed Lola Quinlan’s claims:

“On February 1, 2012, Dr. Burzynski’s attorney, Richard Jaffe, disputed Lola Quinlan’s allegations on Houston’s KPRC News.”

Thank you very much.[[User: Didymus Judas Thomas 15:03, 12/26/2012 (UTC)
So? [OR] Disputing it in the media probably means he doesn’t have a case. [/OR] In any case, a lawyer disputing the allegations against his client is not even news. — [[User: Arthur Rubin 15:24, 12/26/2012 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, I’m not sure what relevance your above post has re WP:NPOV since the article includes statements from attorneys representing both sides

17:51, 12/27/2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas



12/24/2012, Monday – 3:54 pm (21:54.UTC) – “What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it, which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least promising.”

[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([User JzG/help|Help!])

“Nobody else is doing meaningful work on it” ?

Ignores independent research done in Poland, Russia, Korea, Egypt, Japan, & China which specifically reference SRB’s publications in their publications re antineoplastons & phenylacetylglutamine (PG); which is AS2-5, & includes phase III trials published in China & continued research being published in China 12/17/2012?


1. I pointed out to Wikipedia, a 12/17/2012 scientific publication re antineoplastons, which referenced Burzynski @ 22. (antineoplaston AS21)

2. 7 days after this scientific journal was published, Wikipedia’a “Guy (Help!’s) ”response, Monday, 12/24/2012 @ 3:54 pm, is to advise me:

“What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it, which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least promising.”

Guy (Help!) 3:54 pm, 12/24/2012, Monday

3. So, Wikipedia’s, Guy (Help!), defines an event having been published 7 days ago (12/17/2012 to 12/24/2012) as:

“…nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it…”

CDA-2 (cell differentiation agent 2), a URINARY preparation
CDA-2 and its main component PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE (PG or PAG)
Antineoplaston AS2-1 is a 4:1 mixture of phenylacetic acid (PA) and PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE (PAG or PG)
Antineoplastons AS2-5 and AS2-1 are derived from Antineoplaston A10
BURZYNSKI Reference: 22.
antineoplaston AS21
12/26/2012, Wednesday – 12:43 – “There is unlikely to be any dispassionate debate over ANPs while Burzynski continues with his unethical practices.”

JzG|Guy User:JzG/help|Help!

Wikipedia: Judge, Jury, Executioner

“The world, right now, considers Burzynski to be at best unethical and at worst a quack…”?

Since when did Wikipedia conduct a world-wide “opinion poll” re Burzynski ?

And if Wikipedia is correct, how did this happen ?

Burzynski referenced by other Cancer researchers:

2011 – Phase II trial of tipifarnib and radiation in children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas
University of California—San Francisco

Children’s Hospital Boston, Massachusetts

St Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee

Seattle Children’s Hospital, Seattle, Washington

Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Children’s National Medical Center, Washington, DC

Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Ohio

Neuro Oncol (2011) 13 (3): 298-306
doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noq202

5.723 Impact Factor

25. ↵ Burzynski SR
Treatments for astrocytic tumors in children: current and emerging strategies
Paediatr Drugs. 2006;8:167-178
Pediatric Drugs
May 2006, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 167-178

Rhode Island Red attempts to get away with misquoting me:

“The other argument is that the secondary sources (i.e., respected cancer organizations, FDA, etc.) are not reliable because they are Burzynski’s “competitors”

[[User: Rhode Island Red]] 4:18 pm, Yesterday (UTC−6)





What a Wipocrite (Wiki + Hypocrite)

Steve Pereira (SilkTork) is such a “WIPOCRITE,” that he claims:
“the community were united that your contributions were biased”
He conveniently; like a good little mini-Jimbroni would, ignores ALL of his fellow WIPOCRITES comments, which completely ignored:
([WP:SOP] Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then. 7.”)

Due & undue weight: [3]

“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant & should not be considered,”

[WP:NPOV] “History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note 3)

(Neutral Point of View)
1. 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:52 pm – 21:52 (UTC) – “We are told that 2013 will be a big year, but apparently his plan is to release another bullshit movie not to publish useful research”
2. 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:54 pm (21:54.UTC) – “What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it, which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least promising.”
3. 12/26/2012, Wednesday – 12:43 – “There is unlikely to be any dispassionate debate over ANPs while Burzynski continues with his unethical practices.”
4. 12/30/2012 8:58 “The world, right now, considers Burzynski to be at best unethical and at worst a quack…”?
Am I NOT the only one convinced that “the community” was also “united” in something more than just their “goose-stepping ?
Pereira, the imperfect ‘pedia Pimp tries to Wow his readers by waxing WikiWhOReD, by ignoring that ALL the previous BIASED opinion B.S. that his fellow-Facist forged ahead with, and which Wikipediantic history says means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (say it again) because it is their BIASED OPINION and is ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS, and it was as so much WikiLitter, well, he’s just facist-free speechless about that, as any Jimbroni AstroTurf Twerk should be
To show exactly what zealots these WikiPimps are, just absorb this exchange:
“The Burzynski Clinic Article has:

“…a Mayo Clinic study found no benefit….”

But that was not what the study concluded

See below:

Although we could not confirm any tumor regression in patients in this study, the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficacy.”
In the interest of Neutrality, please remove the reference to Mayo entirely or change to;
“…a Mayo Clinic study found that “the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficacy.”
Thank you very much

Didymus Judas Thomas 21:12, 12/10/2012
“How is “found no benefit” not a a fair and pithy description of the Mayo Clinic study’s summary?”

Alexbrn 21:24, 12/10/2012
“I feel this should be changed under WP:NPOV because not every reader is going to understand the “Fair & Pithy” reason I was provided

I feel that the average reader reading this will read it as meaning a study was done & completed with the necessary # of people for an effective study, when that was not the conclusion as pointed out in my above post

Thank you very much.”

Didymus Judas Thomas 11:02, 12/18/2012

That’s right !

“NO RESPONSE” from the “mini-b” (a/k/a “mini-brain”), wannabe Fascists who are so zealous about using their alleged “Fair and Pithy” “found no benefit” WikiWhOReD; which they utilize in an effort to deceive those who are NOT smarter than a fifth-grader

These WikiPimps are so certain of the righteousness of their evangelical cause, that they do NOT even have the “GRAPEFRUITS” to use what the study’s conclusions actually said, and let the chips fall where they may

There are a lot of “chips” falling at Wikipedia


JIMBRONI, you’re no Maggie Thatcher

You can’t even wear her pants
Margaret Thatcher: “The Iron Lady”

Jimbroni: “No iron in the pants”
Jimbroni’s list of Facist, mini-Hitler, Monty Pythonesque Women’s underwear wearing Wannabes on Wikipediantic:

1. Alexbrn
2. fluffernutter
3. NE Ent
4. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 (Seb az86556)
5. Tom Morris
6. Guerillero
7. Dave Dial
8. John
9. Nstrauss
10. Yobol
11. Drmies
12. foxj
13. Ironholds
14. Rhode Island Red
15. Anthony (AGK) BASC wikiagk@gmail.com
16. Steve Pereira (Silk Tork) silktork@gmail.com
WikiWhOReD (Wiki + Word + Whore): Pimping a word. Attempting to deceive someone by means of misdirection with words
The South will rise again, just not in Jimbroni’s pants
Happy Friday the 13th, Wikipediantic
[1] – 6/27/2013Jimmy Wales Is Not an Internet Billionaire (By AMY CHOZICK):
[2] – 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:52 pm – 21:52 (UTC) – [User Talk:JzG|Guy] ([User:JzG/help|Help!])
[3] – 12/26/2012Lola A. Quinlan:
Houston’s KPRC News:
Lola A. Quinlan’s attorney’s web-site:
[4] –




























These mini-b’s went so far as to allege all sorts of sockpuppetry

Wikipediantic, why don’t you list all the dates and times I was supposedly doing all of these activities; and don’t forget to include all the time I spent blogging, on Twitter, making comments on articles, etc., and once you have all that data compiled, explain how one individual could do all that in a 24-hour day

That’s right Wikipediantic

I’m challenging you to put up or shut up your cornholio

Count de Money: What Are the Costs of Cancer ? (American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures 2002-2013)

What Are the Costs of Cancer?
National Institutes of Health (NIH) estimates:
overall costs of cancer:
2010 – $263.8 billion (2011)
2010☝$263.8 billion (2010)

2008👇$201.5 billion (2013)
2008☝$228.1 billion (2009)
2007☝$226.8 billion (2012)
2007☝$219.2 billion (2008)

2006👇$206.3 billion (2007)
2005☝$209.9 billion (2006)
2004☝$189.8 billion (2005)
2003☝$189.5 billion (2004)
2002☝$171.6 billion (2003)
2001☝$156.7 billion (2002)

direct medical costs
(total of all health expenditures)
2010 – $102.8 billion (2011)
2010☝$102.8 billion (2010)

2008👇$77.4 billion (2013)
2008👇$93.2 billion (2009)
2007☝$103.8 billion (2012)
2007☝$89.0 billion (2008)
2006☝$78.2 billion (2007)
2005☝$74.0 billion (2006)
2004☝$69.4 billion (2005)
2003☝$64.2 billion (2004)
2002☝$60.9 billion (2003)
2001☝$56.4 billion (2002)

2008-2011 – indirect morbidity costs
(cost of lost productivity due to illness)
2010 – $20.9 billion (2011)
2010☝$20.9 billion (2010)
2008☝$18.8 billion (2009)
2007☝$18.2 billion (2008)
2006☝$17.9 billion (2007)
2005☝$17.5 billion (2006)
2004☝$16.9 billion (2005)
2003☝$16.3 billion (2004)

2002👇$15.5 billion (2003)
2001☝$15.6 billion (2002)
indirect mortality costs
(cost of lost productivity due to premature death)
2010 – $140.1 billion (2011)
2010☝$140.1 billion (2010)
2008☝$124.0 billion (2013)

2008👇$116.1 billion (2009)
2007☝$123.0 billion (2012)
2007☝$112.0 billion (2008)

2006👇$110.2 billion (2007)
2005☝$118.4 billion (2006)
2004👇$103.5 billion (2005)
2003☝$109 billion (2004)
2002☝$95.2 billion (2003)
2001☝$84.7 billion (2002)

According to US Census Bureau:
Americans uninsured
2012-2013 had no health insurance coverage
2010👇approximately 50 million (2013)
2009 – almost 51 million (2012)
2009☝almost 51 million (2011)
2008☝46 million (2010)
2008 – approximately 28% aged 18 to 34 years (2010)
2010👇almost one-third of Hispanics (31%) (2013)
2009 – almost one-third of Hispanics (32%) (2012)
2009☝almost one­-third of Hispanics (32%) (2011)
2011-2012 (17 years of age and younger)
2010-2012had no health insurance coverage
2010 – one in 10 children (2013)
2009 – one in 10 children (2012)
2009 – one in 10 children (2011)
2008 – 10% of children (2010)
2012-2013 PLEASE NOTE:

These numbers are not comparable to those published in previous years as of 2011, NIH calculating estimates using different data source:

2012 – NIH is using a different data source:

2012-2013 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

2012-2013 MEPS estimates based on more current, nationally representative data used extensively in scientific publications

2012-2013 direct and indirect costs will no longer be projected to current year, estimates of indirect morbidity costs discontinued

2012-2013 For more information, please visit nhlbi.nih.gov/about/factpdf.htm.
Lack of health insurance and other barriers prevents many Americans from receiving optimal health care
2008 – early release estimates from National Health Interview Survey (2009)
2006 – early release estimates from the National Health Interview Survey (2008)
2004National Health Interview Survey data (2007)
2003National Health Interview Survey data (2006)
2008 – about 24% aged 18 to 64 years (2009)
2006☝about 24% aged 18-64 (2008)
2004 – about 17% younger than age 65 had no health insurance coverage (2007)
2003☝about 17% younger than age 65 have no health insurance coverage (2006)
2004 – 27% 65 and older had Medicare coverage only (2007)
2003☝24% 65 and older have Medicare coverage only (2006)
2008 – 13% of children had no health insurance coverage for at least part of past year (2009)
2006☝13% of children had no health insurance coverage for at least part of past year (2008)
2008 – More than 36% of adults who lack high school diploma were uninsured in past year (2009)
2006☝Almost 34% of adults who lack high school diploma were uninsured in past year (2008)
2008 – 23% of high school graduates (2009)
2006☝23% of high school graduates (2008)
2008👇14% of those with more than high school education (2009)
2006 – 15% of those with more than high school education (2008)
2008 – Lack of health insurance is not only a concern of unemployed; almost one-quarter of employed individuals (aged 18 to 64 years) were uninsured sometime during past year (2009)
2004 – Persons in lowest income group 10 times as likely as persons in highest income group not to receive needed medical care because of cost (2007)
2004 – Almost 16 million citizens (6%) were unable to obtain needed medical care due to cost (2007)
2003 – In survey, nearly 20% aged 18-44 years reported not having usual place to go for medical care (2006)
2010-2013 – Uninsured patients and ethnic minorities substantially more likely to be diagnosed with cancer at later stage, when treatment can be more extensive and more costly
2012-2013 – For more information on relationship between health insurance and cancer, see Cancer Facts & Figures 2008, Special Section, available online at cancer.org/statistics.
2010 – cancer.org.
2009 – (5008.08), Special Section, available online at cancer.org.
2008 – see special section page 22