Pete Cohen films Pat and Steve Clarkson

Pat Clarkson, and I come from Danville, California, which is near San Francisco, and I have multiple myeloma; which is not a common cancer
About 20,000 people in the United States have the disease, and about 10,000 die every year, and 10,000 get the disease
So it’s a relatively small number of folks,that have it
So it’s not well
It’s not as well researched as some of the other cancers, um, but we’re hoping that the, um, Burzynski Clinic can help me

There’s not much hope for me
I, I have probably, a, uh, prognosis of a couple, couple years
Maybe a year or two to live, um, without, um, without I, I, an alternative method of treatment, and that’s why
If I could say this a little differently
The conventional medicine, or what we would call conventional medicine, which is, you know, chemotherapy, radiation, uh, surgery; which is not possible with, uh, multiple myeloma because there is no, no large tumor that can be surgically removed, uh, the doctors have told us basically there is no cure, and that, and I, I say doctors; this is our local oncologist, um, and the head of oncology at, um, University of California, San Francisco; which is a very well respected school, uh, hospital, that there is no, uh, no reasonable possibility of a cure
Um, by contrast, uh, Dr. Burzynski, we have found out, has, uh, cured several people with myeloma, and he’s cured many other people with different kinds of cancer
The problem is, uh, that the FDA in its wisdom, will not allow us to, uh, be treated with the, uh, antineoplastons that are the backbone of the Burzynski therapy
Well they’ve told us that they don’t have evidence that it’s, um, that it’s an effective treatment
Uh, that, they don’t have evidence that it’s not, non-toxic; which in fact, uh, is incorrect because the FDA does have evidence that it’s non-toxic
Through the Senator’s office at the, the FDA is saying that they, they don’t know for sure that it’s not toxic; that’s not true, uh, and they don’t know that it will cure the disease, and therefor they can’t approve it
We’re willing
Pat’s willing to take the odds of a treatment, that is not 100% guaranteed, and let’s face it, most of the treatments that are approved by the FDA, are toxic, and are not guaranteed
So we don’t really understand, uh, why they have an issue with it, except that, uh, there’s an awful lot of money involved
Um, one of the peculiarities of the FDA, we understand they’re, by law, required to get much of their funding from the very companies that they’re supposed to be supervising

As, as I understand, uh, the Constitution, there is no basis in the Constitution for the Federal Government to be telling, an American, who they can use for a doctor or what drugs that they can use for, uh, their, their illness
Yet, over the years this, uh, this power has grown and been accepted at the FDA, and now it’s a, uh, uh, it’s, it’s out of control
We have asked the FDA what is different about my case
Why I don’t get an exemption
We don’t have a response yet to that, to that question
While doctors are generally very bright; they have to be to get through medical school, but they don’t have any training in critical, critical thinking, and most of them that I run into are not particularly good critical thinkers
The world they live in is to memorize a set of symptoms, then to look up or remember what those symptoms suggest in terms of a disease, and then remember or look up what the treatment is

So, here we have, um, uh, Dr. Burzynski, who is also a Ph.D biochemist, which is a, a interesting and, and very useful, uh, combination, who discovered that, um, in people who have cancer, they generally don’t have, or they have very reduced levels of what he now calls, uh, antineoplastons, and neoplaston is simply the medical jargon for cancer; so it’s anti-cancer, in effect, um, he discover the people who, uh, don’t have cancer, do have, high levels of this, and determined from research that these are controlled by, um, by the genes, and it’s part of the body’s immune system, in effect
We all produce cancer cells everyday of our lives
Like we produce bac, or have bacteria in our gi, digestive tract, that is controlled, by certain genes
In this case, um, he discovered that by, uh, by injecting, uh, or infusing, uh, these, they’re called peptides, peptide, that the patient could be helped
How, how innocuous, or how anti-toxic, can you have
It’s a, it’s a substance th, the body itself produces, unless the genes have shut down
Which is the case in, uh, some, in most, or at least half I guess, of multiple myeloma cases
My, my message would be that they don’t have the right to tell me to hold a, a life or a death, um, decision
They, they don’t have the right to tell me that, um, I can’t have treatment that I seek, or I will die
I don’t think they have that right to do that
Treatment is available
Uh, it is our choice
We are free Americans
We’re well informed
Uh, well educated
It should be our choice, and the Federal government in any, in any form should not have the authority to interfere with that
Uh, nothing’s guaranteed in this world, um, but we’ve got, um, we’ve got some confidence in this clinic and in this treatment
Pat & Steve Clarkson
January 27, 2012
Houston, Texas


Pete Cohen talks to Steve and Mary Jo Siegel

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

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

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

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


Pete Cohen talks with Doug Olson

My name is Doug Olson
I’m from Nebraska
Western Nebraska
And, uh, my mother has been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer
So, we, uh, middle of November, now this is first of, first of the year, eh, but in the middle of November her weight, she was losing weight, you know
She was suffering from indigestion and, and stomach pain, and so we started to have her checked, uh, for problems with her stomach for ulcers and that kind of thing, and all that proved negative, and they put her on an ulcer medicine anyway, thinking that maybe that would solve the inflammation in her stomach, and, uh, then we decided that we (?) better see another physician, and so we did that, and they then ultra sounded and then CAT scanned and found that she had tumors in her pancreas and in her liver
Uh, many years ago, back in, in the late 70’s, my parents had been involved with, with the cancer, uh, subject in regards to my father’s sister, and then his cousin
He started researching cancer and cancer treatments when his sister passed away, and then, uh, they got in contact with a doctor in Orden, Nebraska, that treated cancer patients with Laetrile, and he also did other, not so ordinary things
He did duculation therapy
Uh, a number of things that were really treatments for the disease rather than just treatments for the symptoms, and, uh, during that time, dad testified at the state legislature; they were trying to work against Dr. Miller’s license
This was the Dr. Miller in Orden, and, uh, so dad testified on, on his behalf
Uh, dad’s cousin was, uh, a patient of his, and she had a brain tumor the size of a lemon, and Dr. Miller put her on, uh, Laetrile treatments on a, on a special diet and some things, uh
And this was what, in the 70’s ?
This was back in the, probably the late 70’s, and, so, when they
Well they cured her
She had been sent home from the Mayo Clinic
Given 3 to 6 months to live, and, uh, they had, uh, burned with radiation and cobalt I believe is what they were treating her with at that time
Uh, they burned the, uh, nerves in her eyes so that her eyes crossed
Uh, they sent her home to die
They, uh
She was in a wheelchair
She was a young woman and she had a young child
Wasn’t able to hold that child, and so when my dad saw her, met her, she was in that condition
She was it, in the last 6 months of her life
Gave her a book about, uh, the subject, and told her about Dr. Miller, and her family
She then went to Dr. Miller to see if there was any help for her, and he, and he immediately put her on Laetrile treatment then and, and, uh, the interesting thing about it, looking at his doctor’s protocol; because I’ve come across his protocol, uh, Dr. Miller was also giving his patients antineoplastons, and
Yeah, because we’ve got this thing here that you gave me
Just explain to me what this is
This was his physician’s protocol, to list, uh, the different medicines a person should, should be on
If they had cancer
Uh, if they had cancer, and so, uh, this was given to another friend of ours, a friend of the family, uh, the folks that rented one of our properties, uh, the woman got a, a tumor as well, and this was given to her as part of the regimen she should follow, and she was given Laetrile injections, and then as soon as the injections, uh, were over they went then to pills as the size of the dosage went down, and when you got to pills you got to go home
So, uh, I remember speaking to her at the time
I had a
I was in high school, and I had a summer job with her husband, who was the county engineer
So, uh, we saw them all the time, and she told us, uh, the circumstances when, when she was allowed to come home
She was feeling strong
She said: “I haven’t felt better”
As a part of the diet and the things that, that they had her doing
She said she felt better than she had in many years
So she and her daughter, started a business in town in order to pay for the treatments, and, uh, she recovered
The tumor continued to shrink and shrink until it was nothing
Uh, what had been listed as inoperable, uh, after it shrunk halfway they decided, well maybe we can operate on you
Uh, we think it’s operable now
She said: “Why would I let you operate when what I’m doing is working” ?
But, uh, she is alive yet today and in her mid-80’s and, uh, so, uh, when it came to my mother’s illness, we contacted her, and asked her how she’s doing, and she’s sent this protocol she’s been keeping all these years
Uh, as a result of my parents knowing Dr. Miller back when he was alive
He is, he has passed away, uh, 7 maybe years ago, and, uh, many years ago when they were taking chelation therapy from him, he had given my mother, uh, a flyer on Dr. Burzynski, and, uh, said if anything ever happens to you after I’m gone, this is the man to contact, and so we’ve had that flyer in a file for many years at my parents house, and so when mom got sick she immediately began digging that out and found
So your mom immediately started thinking, well I need to find that leaflet
That’s what we were told to do
And did, and did she go and speak to an oncologist ?
Did she say that she wanted to come here, or ?
We had a local physician, who was not an oncologist, that had, that was the 2nd physician we, we consulted, that did the ultrasound and the CAT scan for her and, and they knew that she had tumors, and no we did not go to an on, oncologist from there
Why ?
because we knew that we did not want to take their treatments, uh, so we immediately contacted the clinic here in, in Houston, Texas, and, uh, we had to wait on, uh, certain things to be completed
CAT scans
Different things had to be done, and, and information had to be sent down here and examined, and then, uh, after a period of maybe 2 weeks, hassling with information, we were told that, yes, uh, we, they would accept her as a patient, and we were getting in towards the holidays at that time
Would we like to wait until the holidays were over, because Christmas
You know, there would be 5 days off for Christmas, uh, over a weekend and 5 days off for New Years over a weekend, and we would be down here in Houston over those times, but we elected to come anyway because we could get the treatment started right away
rather than to wait another month before starting treatments, and, uh, so they, uh, immediately put, put her on antineoplastons and, uh, they sent away the tissue samples to Arizona to have a CARIS test done, and determine what medications would be
So did you have those results come back ?
Yes, those results came back quicker than what we expected
And wh, what did they show ?
Well they, they show a, a list of treatments that are effective, and against it, and then a list of treatments actually that encourage it’s growth
So you end up with a list of, uh, approximately 7 on each side
7 good
7 bad
And these are all different cancer drugs
So what they’re looking at is all
is all the different cancer drugs, and which ones
And whether we’ve got a, a thousand or 2 thousand different drugs that person might try, and, uh, so
So the (?) for how to, to try a few of these chemotherapies, but in very small doses
Is that right ?
There’s 2, 2 chemotherapies
One is an, is an oral chemotherapy that is, uh, quite mild in its side effects, and then, uh, there’s another much stronger one that was, uh, also one of th, the top 2, and, uh, the side effects for it are more varied and more violent, uh, if you will, and, uh, my mother’s had one treatment of that so far, and the treat, the side effects
She did, is suffering from side effects from that particular
It’s Oxaliplatin, and, uh, some people have very violent side effects but she’s thankfully not had any violent side effects
So why didn’t you go down the conventional road of having high-dose chemotherapy ?
Well, when you research the, uh, success rate, with pancreatic cancer, going the normal way, uh, or the normal, uh, road, the success rate is very, very small, and so you’re just guaranteeing, in my opinion, if, if the success rate is 5% or under, uh, you’re introducing yourself to a, a road to death, that’s very unpleasant
You know, you just want to go home and make yourself very comfortable on painkillers and, and enjoy the rest of your life, uh, if that’s the, if that’s the road you’re planning to take
Uh, that was our opinion, and so
What do you think about all the resistance then of, of Dr. Burzynski and all of the kind of, uh, ?
We have
(?) people just calling him a
What’s the word ?
Yes, we, uh, we have seen course, of course these things through our, our life
Dr. Miller
The whole Laetrile treatment thing was something that was, uh, thrown out
You know, it’s pretty well suppressed now
You can go to Mexico and get those treatments
Why do you think they were, pushed aside ?
This Laetrile
What is Laetrile ?
Well Laetrile is a naturally occurring, uh, substance that you find in some of our foods
It’s, they call it B17 although, vitamin B17, although there’s some discussion as to whether it’s really a vitamin
Another name for it is Amygdalin
Uh, it’s found in peach pits and apricot pits in high levels but there’s a number of other foods that you find it in
Uh, it, it,
I’m not sure, whether this is 100% accurate, but my understanding of it is it’s associated with, with cyanide, and it would be, uh, like an encapsulated cyanide, that as it travels through your body, the cyanide portion, um, does not become available to your body until it becomes in, uh, associated with a cancer cell
and the cancer cells attack the outer shell of that molecule, and the cyanide becomes, uh, uh, available then, and it kills the cancer cell that’s right there
So it was apparently a very nontoxic substance
Uh, you have regulated dosages
I mean, it seems to me interesting, uh, when a doctor prescribes a dose of chemotherapy, uh, there’s nothing that I can think of much more toxic than a, than a chemotherapy drug, and certainly they’ll kill you if they don’t, uh, give you the right dosage, but it was not seemed, deemed accessible that a byproduct of food; which a doctor could regulate the dosage of as well, could be used as a transfer, cancer treatment
Uh, and we’ve seen things in the past, as well
When I was a, a very young child, I had a great aunt, that, uh, I was not even aware; at the time I was very young, she was traveling to Texas and getting treatments
Uh, one of them was called the Hoxsey treatment and, uh, she was living a very comfortable life on treatments that she got there
There were 2 treatments in Texas at that time, that, uh, were available
The FDA would come in and raid the clinics, and make just life miserable for them
They got one of them closed down, and that was the one that my great aunt was on, and that treatment was, was pills that she could take, uh, and live quite comfortably, in Nebraska
Once they closed that clinic down, then she had to go down, uh, to the other clinic in Texas, which was a supplement that was a liquid that tasted bad, and she had to make frequent trips, at that point, but still, as long as she could get that treatment she was comfortable and, and lived a normal life
A productive life
Uh, we knew her as our great aunt and, and didn’t even know her, uh, uh, that there was a health problem and, uh, but then the FDA got that clinic closed down
So, as soon as she lost access to those, her treatments, then her cancer which, uh, was no longer able to be controlled, came back strong and, and she died
So, uh, the family had been, had access to this knowledge and this, the FDA’s games with cancer treatments for many years
Um, I’m also married to, a, a gal whose father did blood research as a, he was a Ph.D and worked in university hospitals, in blood research all of his life
He, he discovered a blood protein that was associated with cancer
Uh, it was actually associated more with good health, maybe than you could say with cancer, but he discovered a, a blood coagulation protein, uh, or associated with blood coagulation that would, that could be used as a flag or a test, to see whether a person was healthy or not
Uh, as they applied it to patients in these hospitals, during their research trials, they found that this protein was an indicator whether a person had cancer or thrombosis
Uh, 2 of the very largest killers, and this protein, if present in high enough amounts in our blood, uh, was an indicator that you were healthy, and as the protein’s amount, uh, declined, then it was an indicator that something was wrong, and below a certain amount you knew something was wrong
You better be taking further testing
to find out what your problem was
Uh, that has run into resistance
Uh, that (?) has not been approved by the FDA, and, uh, th, our family’s experiences with cancer treatments, cancer drugs, as they’re affected by the FDA, we have determined by our opinion that, uh, it’s, un, unless there’s something that’s going to generate a, a lot of capital, and then a lot of tax money for the Federal Government, the FDA’s not very interested in it
Uh, so, cynical attitude, but evidence bears it out
and so we remain cynical until so, until something proves
Yeah, absolutely
So this is this doctor in, uh, in the 70’s
This is information that he provided
and you can see here that he is obviously, antineoplastic enzymes
See, here obviously
Do you think he meant Dr. Burzynski ?
He just knew of him ?
You have no idea ?
I have no idea
He was obviously a fan, if he was someone that eventually said
He said it to you
Did you say he said it to your mum or to your dad?
To my mom
Probably to mom and dad
Uh, my mom was the record keeper, and so, she kept the flyer
but they both took, uh, the, uh, the therapy from, uh, well, the blood therapy
I mentioned it earlier
Suddenly the name’s gone away
but, uh
That’s ok
So what about, um
You know, one of the barriers that we had is, when we spoke to oncologists, they just said, no, you mustn’t come to see this guy
His work isn’t peer-reviewed
He’s a charlatan
Why, why do you think they would say that ?
I mean I’m surprised, that these oncologists don’t actually come here, to actually see what, what’s going on
So your opinion about that ?
My opinion is, that physicians are, very much, tied up, with large pharmaceutical corporations
Uh, I spoke with my father-in-law
My father-in-law had to have research done in, in his Ph.D work, and he had to get cooperation from hospitals, from doctors, and, uh, all of these organizations in order to have the research done that he needed done, ’cause past his lab, when he wants to introduce research, onto a patients, uh, live blood, and he needs to collect specimens from patients, then a whole ‘nother group of, uh, set of authorizations have to be signed and, and he being a Ph.D working with the medical profession all his life, he knew how tied up the medical profession is, by, generally by M.D.’s, that control the money flow, uh, in the medical profession
Ph.D’s do the research, but they have to apply for grants, and typically the grants are controlled by M.D.’s, and so if an M.D. Decides that your, your particular research is either applicable to, uh, something they think will make a lot of money, or it’s the, the quote, uh, popular, popular item of the day
Politically correct, you name it, then you’re going to get funded
Otherwise, uh, my father-in-law noticed at different times, his research had to be funded out of his own pocket, and at other times, it looked like, it was something that doctors would like, and so they would, he would get funding, but I think that, ah, as he commented, any doctor, coming out of med school, has been contacted by a pharmaceutical company, and has probably signed a contract, that when that pharmaceutical company wants to test a drug, or test an item, that that medical, uh, doctor, will be accessible to them, to test their products
So, with the number of pharmaceutical companies that you have, and all of them recruiting M.D.’s as they come out of med school, and saying, you know, would you be part of our group, you end up under contract with the large pharmaceutical companies
and if, if 90% of the doctors are under contract with pharmaceutical companies, to, uh, to cooperate with their drug testing, then large Pharma, has control of virtually all doctors, and so, uh, uh, if you have large Pharma saying, we don’t want to see a cancer cure, that we’re not in control of, we don’t want to see something that makes curing disease cheap, and easy, and food related, then you’re not gonna
They’re going to put the word out to all their doctors: Don’t have any wo, don’t have anything to do with this
Uh, they can come up with, some written material for their, their doctors to read
They send them the evidence
It may be accurate
It may not be very accurate, and, uh, but it’s just a smear campaign to destroy reputations so that they don’t get hurt financially
and, uh, so, uh, that’s the reason I believe
You know, most of these doctors, they don’t have the time, or the expertise to do the research themselves
They can’t read everything, and so when someone they trust, or someone that they’re financially, uh, obligated to, comes down and says: Here’s the stand that we want you to take, and it’s against this particular treatment, or against this doctor, they do what they’re told
They do what they know best
Uh, my father-in-law, for instance, was, uh, also involved as a professor in these med centers
He taught nutrition, and he said it’s always a, been amazing to me that you can get through med school, and never take a class on, on nutrition
So you can become an M.D., and not understand the value, of nutrition, to a person’s health
That’s a problem
Uh, he recognized it as a problem
I recognize it as a problem because I particularly believe that most of our ill health is because how we treat our bodies
What we eat
Whether we exercise or don’t
Whether we provide our body with a way to flush the poisons or not
Uh, healthy living, and if you don’t teach our medical profession, healthy living, how can they teach their patients
So this, this whole system is, is just flawed in some ways, and weak in other ways, and, uh, controlled, for the purposes of commerce, instead of the public
So you, you think it’s a good idea treating people as an individual and finding out what they need as opposed to like carpet bombing them ?
When we understood the, the individualized approach, here at the Burzynski Clinic, that they would take where they would test the cancer cells, uh, against all of these treatments and all of these chemotherapy treatments and, and anything else that might be out there that would, would treat cancer, and come back with a, a individualized care approach to the individualized cells of cancer that my mother has, that’s when we knew that we had to come here
We wondered, and I’ve told my friends, and everybody wonders, that oughta be the standard approach everywhere
Why wouldn’t you test, every cancer, and see what it is that’s gonna treat it best ?
You, you tell me
Doug Olson chats with Pete Cohen
January 2011


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
16. Steve Pereira (Silk Tork)
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

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 ?

“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?”
“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)
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