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



Critiquing: Doctor accused of selling false hope to families (USA TODAY NEWS, NATION, Liz Szabo, USA TODAY)

I gave Liz Szabo and USA TODAY the chance to act like a Spike Lee joint and “Do the Right Thing”, the same day their article came out [1]

I gave them the opportunity to prove that their article was a legitimate piece of journalism with some semblance of integrity, and NOT just akin to one of “The Skeptics™ phoned-in “rubber-stamped” yellow journalism hit pieces

Instead, it seems that Liz Szabo and / or USA TODAY decided to act as if they had rolled a Spike Lee joint

I sent an e-mail with 2 editorial corrections, and only one (correcting Lisa Merritt’s comment
link from taking the reader to the 1999 Mayo Clinic report instead of to her comments), was corrected [2]

The 2nd correction which they #FAILED to do, earns them well deserved INSOLENCE
The article claims:
Burzynski, 70, calls his drugs “antineoplastons” and says he has given them to more than 8,000 patients since 1977.”

However, if you select the “8,000 patients” link, the referenced page does NOT indicate that at all [2]

It advises:
“That same year, Dr. Burzynski founded his clinic in Houston where he’s since treated over 8,000 patients.” [3]

Nowhere does it indicate that he “treated 8,000 patients” with antineoplastons

The question that Liz Szabo and USA TODAY should answer, is:

1. Who is your “fact-checker”, and
2. are they smarter than a 5th grader ?
In fact, Burzynski’s 2002 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing advises:

” … in 1997, his medical practice was expanded to include traditional cancer treatment options such as chemotherapy, gene targeted therapy, immunotherapy and hormonal therapy in response to FDA requirements that cancer patients utilize more traditional cancer treatment options in order to be eligible to participate in the Company’s Antineoplaston clinical trials” [4]
The article continues:
“Individual success stories can be misleading, said Arthur Caplan, a professor and head of the division of bioethics at NYU Langone Medical Center”
The question Arthur Caplan should be asking is:

Why has the United States Food and Drug Administration required Burzynski’s clinical trial patients to fail conventional therapies; such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation, BEFORE they are allowed to be treated with antineoplaston therapy ?

If the F.D.A. did NOT impose these restrictions upon Burzynski’s clinical trials, then the question Arthur Caplan raises would be moot
The article quotes Dr. Jan Buckner as saying:
“When I hear a story that is way out of the norm, the first question I ask is,

‘OK, is the diagnosis even correct?‘ ”

Buckner said”

“If the diagnosis wasn’t right to start with, it doesn’t matter what the treatment was.”

“Brain tumors are notoriously difficult to diagnose, Buckner says”

“When dealing with rare brain cancer, doctors may disagree about how to interpret imaging results up to 40% of the time”
I wonder if Dr. Jan Buckner would agree with David Gorski; who is a BREAST cancer oncology specialist, and NOT a BRAIN cancer oncology specialist, who has the presumptiveness to speculate that 3 different medical opinions could have misdiagnosed Tori Moreno in August 1998; who was diagnosed with a very large tumor, about 3 inches in the largest diameter and located in the brain stem, which was too risky for surgery, and about which her parents were told by ALL 3, that Tori’s brain cancer was fatal and, she would die in a few days or at the most, 2-6 weeks, and that there was nothing that could be done, and was finally put on Burzynski’s antineoplaston therapy in October, when she was about 3 ½ months old, and in such condition that they were afraid that she might die at any time, David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., FACS; who claims, “I do know cancer science” , has the audacity, because of his “book learnin'” has the temerity to postulate his “science-based medicine theory” that Miller’s Children at Long Beach Memorial misdiagnosed Tori Moreno’s inoperable stage 4 BSG

David Gorski has the gall to profer that City of Hope misdiagnosed Tori Moreno’s inoperable stage 4 brain stem glioma

David Gorski has the chutzpah to pontificate that Dr. Fred Epstein in New York misdiagnosed Tori Moreno’s inoperable stage IV brainstem glioma [5]
The article then quotes Peter Adamson, chair of the Children’s Oncology Group:
“But these therapies may have delayed benefits, taking weeks or months to shrink a tumor

“So patients treated by Burzynski may credit him for their progress, just because he was the last doctor to treat them, says Peter Adamson, chair of the Children’s Oncology Group, an NCI-supported research network that conducts clinical trials in pediatric cancer

Conventional cancer treatment can also cause tumors to swell temporarily, due to inflammation

“A patient who isn’t familiar with this phenomenon may assume her tumor is growing

“When that swelling subsides, patients may assume it’s because of Burzynski, Adamson says”
This is laughable

In support of this “phenomenon” , the article provides a link to a Canadian web-site [6]

The site posits:
“RT/TMZ is now widely practiced and the standard of care for appropriately selected patients, we are learning more about the consequences of RT/TMZ”

“One phenomena, termed Pseudo-Progression (psPD)…”
The problem is that this only applies to “Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM)”, and the article provides NO proof whatsoever, that any of Burzynski’s “Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM)” patients have taken “RT/TMZ”
Additionally, the site cites the reference as:

Sanghera, Perry, Sahgal, et al., “Sunnybrook Health Sciences Odette Cancer Centre” (in press, Canadian Journal of Neuroscience)

(“In press” refers to journal articles which have been accepted for publication, but have not yet been published)

However, the journal article in question was published 1/2010, so it has NOT been “in press” for over 3 years and 7 months [7]

Get your act together, aye, Canada !
The article rants and raves on and on about FDA inspection reports from as far back as 1998, but at least they did quote Richard A. Jaffe:

“In Burzynski’s defense, Jaffe notes that inspection reports represent preliminary findings

“The FDA has not yet issued final conclusions”
The article posts this ridiculous claim:
“Yet the National Cancer Institute says there is no evidence that Burzynski has cured a single patient, or even helped one live longer
That’s NOT what this seems to suggest [8]
Then the article quotes pediatric oncologist Peter Adamson, a professor of pediatrics and pharmacology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, in what will no doubt soon be known as a “classic”:
“He’s a snake oil salesman,” says pediatric oncologist Peter Adamson, a professor of pediatrics and pharmacology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia”
All I’d like to know is, which rock did this clown crawl out from under ?

Dr. Adamson, please advise which “snake oil” has been granted Orphan Drug Designation (“ODD”) from the United States Food and Drug Administration [9], and which “snake oil” has been approved for, and used in, phase III clinical trials ? [10]
Q: Is it, it the phase 2 trial is finished ?

A: “Mhmm”

Q: but they’re still accepting people ?

A: “Yeah”

Q: on more like a special ?

A: Special basis, and, um, sometimes compassionate grounds

A: “(compassion exception)”

A: “Uh, exceptions

Q: That’s normal ?

A: “Yes”

A: “(Yes I guess it is a funding issue ?)”

Q: Right

A: “(Like FDA, during the 2nd phase of clinical trials they found the data to be, real, real one, and they gave him the ok to go for 3rd phase of clinical trials, but just to go through this process you would probably need $100,000)”



Oh, wait !!

Dr. Adamson, when you say “snake oil”, I take it you are referring to the low-dose chemotherapy that Burzynski uses ?

Dr. Adamson, do you know what a “hack” is ?
In regards to the Merritt’s, the article has:
“The couple say that Burzynski misled them about the type of treatment that would be offered, as well as the cost”

My questions about the Merritt’s are:

1. Where is their complaint to the Texas Medical Board ?

2. Where is their lawsuit ? Couldn’t they find an attorney to take their case pro bono ?
The article continues:
“Yet even Jaffe has acknowledged that the trialnow in its 17th year — was more about politics than science”

“In his 2008 memoirs, Galileo’s Lawyer, Jaffe called it “a joke.”

“”It was all an artifice, a vehicle we and the FDA created to legally give the patients Burzynski’s treatment,” Jaffe said
What Liz Szabo and her friends at USA TODAY fail to let the readers know, is that this only applied to one trial:
Burzynski’s lawyer is obviously referring to the CAN-1 clinical trial mentioned in Burzynski’s 11/25/1997 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing [11]
One trial that is retrospective is CAN-1 Clinical Trial


133 patients
Clinical trial of patients treated by Dr. Burzynski through 2/23/1996
FDA has indicated it will not accept data generated by this trial since it was not a wholly prospective one
The article continues in the same vein:
“In an interview, Burzynski said developing new drugs is complex and takes time

“Yet the FDA has approved 108 cancer drugs since Burzynski began his trial”
Ms. Szabo and “pals” conveniently “forgets” to educate their audience that Burzynski was using Fleming’s One-sample multiple testing procedure for phase II clinical trials [13], which requires that if the 1st 20 patients meet certain criteria, 20 additional patients are added [14]
“Well, we cannot publish until the time is right” (laughs)


“If you would like to publish the results of, of a
10 year survival, for instance”


“Which we have
Nobody has over 10 year survival in
malignant brain tumor, but we do, and if you like to do it right, it takes time to prepare it, and that’s what we do now
What we publish so far
We publish numerous, uh, publications which were, interim reports when we are still continuing clinical trials
Now we are preparing, a number of publications for final reports
Then Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition makes an outlandish statement, which is quoted in the article:
“Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, describes the FDA’s tolerance of Burzynski as “outrageous.”

“They have put people at risk for a long time,” says Visco, an attorney and breast cancer survivor

“That’s completely unacceptable”

“How can anyone look at these facts and believe that there is a real clinical trial going on … rather than just using the FDA and the clinical trial system to make money?”
I have a suggestion for Ms. Visco

Take your hypocrisy and ask the American Cancer Society if they are still engaged in this kind of activity:

1. AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY: More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives [15]

2. National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest [16]
Then, ask the American Cancer Society, why is it that 10 years ago, estimated breast cancer deaths were expected to be 39,800 (15%), and this year it was 39,620 (14%), which is ONLY 180 LESS than 10 years ago ?
Estimated Breast Cancer Deaths (Women)-USA
2013☝39,620 (14%)
2012👇39,510 (14%)
2011👇39,520 (15%)
2010👇39,840 (15%)
2009👇40,170 (15%)
2008☝40,480 (15%)
2007👇40,460 (15%)
2006☝40,970 (15%)
2005👇40,410 (15%)
2004☝40,110 (15%)
2003☝39,800 (15%)
39,600 (15%)
American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures (2002-2013)
And then ask the American Cancer Society, why is it that 10 years ago, the estimated NEW breast cancer cases were expected to be 211,300 (32%), and this year it was 232,340 (29%), which is 21,340 MORE than it was 10 years ago ?
Estimated New Breast Cancer (Women) – USA
2013☝232,340 (29%)
2012👇226,870 (29%)
2011☝238,480 (30%)
2010☝207,090 (28%)
2009☝192,370 (27%)
2008☝182,460 (26%)

2007👇178,480 (26%)
2006☝212,920 (31%)
2005👇211,240 (32%)
2004☝215,900 (32%)
2003☝211,300 (32%)
_-_203,500 (31%)
American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures (2002-2013)
And after that, ask Susan G. Komen how much is spent on legal action to protect her brand, compared to how much is spent on breast cancer research and prevention ?
Visco, the breast cancer advocate

“I do NOT know why it took YOU so long.”
The article continues with:
“Yet hypernatremia is one of antineoplastons’ most common side effects, known to doctors for two decades”
Yet, “The Skeptics™” refuse to discuss:
2/13/2013 – The frequency, cost, and clinical outcomes of hypernatremia in patients hospitalized to a comprehensive cancer center

Over 3 month period in 2006 re 3,446 patients, most of the hypernatremia (90 %) was acquired during hospital stay [19]

Division of Internal Medicine, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

Department of General Internal Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

Division of Endocrinology, Mayo Clinic
9/1999 – The changing pattern of hypernatremia in hospitalized children [20]

Department of Pediatrics, Texas Children’s Hospital, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
So, after all that, my question for USA TODAY is, does Liz Szabo, Michael Stravato, Jerry Mosemak or Robert Hanashiro have a
journalism degree ?

Because if any of them do, the institution they obtained it from most be so proud of this piece of “fish wrap” you produced

Thank you, USA TODAY, for censoring my 18 comments

I guess you must be (“intellectual”) cowards

At least Forbes had the GRAPEFRUITS to post some of my comments
You’ve just been served, INSOLENTLY

















[1] – 11/15/2013 – USA TODAY NEWS, NATION
Doctor accused of selling false hope to families
Liz Szabo, USA TODAY
[2] – Mayo Clinic – 1999 – report: Lisa Merritt
[3] – 2012 – former Burzynski web-site screenshots, Pg 3 of 62;

Click to access burzynski_fdauntitled_promo_2012.pdf

[4] – 4/26/2013 – Burzynski: FDA requirements that cancer patients utilize more traditional cancer treatment options in order to be eligible to participate in the Company’s Antineoplaston CLINICAL TRIALS:
[5] – 11/14/2013 – Critiquing: Why we fight for patients (Why we fight your patience) TAM 2013, TAM2013, “The Amazing Meeting” 2013 #TAM2013
[6] – Phenomenon – Brain Tumour Foundation of Canada
[7] – Pseudoprogression following chemoradiotherapy for glioblastoma multiforme
Can J Neurol Sci. 2010 Jan;37(1):36-42
[8] – 9/19/2013 – Critiquing: National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) CancerNet “fact sheet” :
[9] – FDA Orphan Drug Designation

Click to access PressRelease_12022008_BZYR(2).pdf

[10] – 11/7/2013Pete Cohen chats with Sonali Patil, Ph.D., Research Scientist at The Burzynski Clinic:
[11] – 7/9/2013 – Burzynski: The Original 72 Phase II Clinical Trials:
[12] – 8/21/2013 – Critiquing David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS
[13] – 2003 – pg. 94

Click to access 960.pdf

[14] – 3/1982 – Biometrics 1982; 38: 143-51
[15] – 11/9/2013Pete Cohen chats with Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski – Interview #2:
[16] – AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY: More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives

Click to access acs.pdf

[17] – 9/11/2013 – National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest:
[18] – 11/13/2013 – The War on Cancer (I don’t think it means, what you think it says it means) #Winning?
[19] – 4/24/2013 – Burzynski: HYPERNATREMIA:
[20] – 9/1999 – Pediatrics. 1999 Sep;104(3 Pt 1):435-9


The War on Cancer (I don’t think it means, what you think it says it means) #Winning?

“In 1971, the ACS (American Cancer Society) aggressively campaigned President Nixon to declare the “War on Cancer,” claiming that this could be won, given increased funding for the National Cancer Institute (NCI)

“President Nixon responded by increasing its funding by $200,000”

“This was in excess of the funding that it then received as one of 30 other National Institutes of Health”

“In so doing, President Nixon effectively created an independent status for the NCI [0]
American Cancer Society
Cancer Facts & Figures 2002-2013
Expected New Cancer Cases – USA
2013☝1,660,290 – (21,380 more than 2012)
2012☝1,638,910 – (42,240 more than 2011)
2011☝1,596,670 – (67,160 more than 2010)
2010☝1,529,560 – (49,810 more than 2009)
2009☝1,479,350 – (42,170 more than 2008)

2008👇1,437,180 – ( 7,740 less than 2007)
2007☝1,444,920 – (45,130 more than 2006)
2006☝1,399,790 – (26,880 more than 2005)
2005☝1,372,910 – ( 4,870 more than 2004)
2004☝1,368,030 – (33,930 more than 2003)
2003☝1,334,100 – (49,200 more than 2002)
Expected to Die – United States
2013☝580,350_-_(3,160 more than 2012)
_-_(5,240 more than 2011)
_-_(2,460 more than 2010)
_-_(7,150 more than 2009)
2009👇562,340_-_(3,310 less than 2008)
2008☝565,650_-_(6,000 more than 2007)
2007👇559,650_-_(5,180 less than 2006)
2006👇564,830_-_(5,450 less than 2005)
2005☝570,280_-_(6,580 more than 2004
_-_(7,200 more than 2003)
_-_(6,000 more than 2002)
Deaths – United States of America
2013almost 1,600 a day
2012 – 1,500+ a day
2011 – 1,500+ a day
2010 – 1,500+ a day
2009 – 1,500+ a day
2008 – 1,500+ a day
2007 – 1,500+ a day
2006 – 1,500+ a day
2005 – 1,500+ a day
2004 – 1,500+ a day
2003 – 1,500+ a day
Estimated Childhood Cancer Deaths (0-14 years)
2013👇1, 310
Estimated New Childhood Cancer (0-14 years)



Estimated Brain and other nervous system Cancer Deaths (Women)
2013☝6,150 (2%)
2012☝5,980 (2%)

2011👇5,670 (2%)
2010☝5,720 (2%)
2009👇5,590 (2%)
2008☝5,650 (2%)
2007☝5,590 (2%)
2006☝5,560 (2%)

2005👇5,480 (2%)
2004👇5,490 (2%)
2003👇5,800 (2%)
20025,900 (2%)
Estimated All Cancer Deaths (Women)
2013👇273,430 (100%)
2012☝275,370 (100%)
2011☝271,520 (100%)
2010☝270,290 (100%)

2009👇269800 (100%)
2008☝271,530 (100%)
2007👇270,100 (100%)
2006👇273,560 (100%)
2005☝275,000 (100%)
2004☝272,810 (100%)
2003☝270,600 (100%)
_-_267,300 (100%)
Estimated Lung and bronchus Cancer Deaths (Women)
2013👇72,220 (26%)
2012☝72,590 (26%)
2011☝71,340 (26%)
2010☝71,080 (26%)

2009👇70,490 (26%)
2008☝71,030 (26%)
2007👇70,880 (26%)
2006👇72,130 (26%)
2005☝73,020 (27%)
2004👇68,510 (25%)
2003☝68,800 (25%)
65,700 (25%)
Estimated Breast Cancer Deaths (Women)
2013☝39,620 (14%)
2012👇39,510 (14%)
2011👇39,520 (15%)
2010👇39,840 (15%)
2009👇40,170 (15%)
2008☝40,480 (15%)
2007👇40,460 (15%)
2006☝40,970 (15%)
2005👇40,410 (15%)
2004☝40,110 (15%)
2003☝39,800 (15%)
39,600 (15%)
Estimated Colon and rectum Cancer Deaths (Women)
2013👇24,530 (9%)
2012☝25,220 (9%)
2011👇24,130 (9%)
2010👇24,790 (9%)
2009👇24,680 (9%)
2008👇25,790 (9%)
2007👇26,180 (10%)
2006👇27,300 (10%)
2005👇27,750 (10%)
2004👇28,410 (10%)
200328,800 (11%)
28,800 (11%)
Estimated Pancreas Cancer Deaths (Women)
2013☝18,970 (7%)
2012☝18,540 (7%)
2011☝18,300 (7%)
2010☝18,030 (7%)
2009☝17,210 (6%)
2008☝16,790 (6%)
2007☝16,530 (6%)
2006☝16,210 (6%)
2005☝15,980 (6%)
2004☝15,830 (6%)
2003☝15,300 (16%)
15,200 (16%)
Estimated Ovary Cancer Deaths (Women)
2013👇14,030 (5%)
2012☝15,500 (6%)
2011☝15,460 (6%)

2010👇13,850 (5%)
2009👇14,600 (5%)
2008☝15,520 (6%)
2007👇15,280 (6%)
2006👇15,310 (6%)
2005☝16,210 (6%)
2004☝16,090 (6%)
2003☝14,300 (5%)
13,900 (5%)
Estimated Leukemia Deaths (Women)
2013☝10,060 (4%)
2012☝10,040 (4%)

2011👇9,040 (3%)
2010👇9,180 (3%)
2009☝9,280 (3%)
2008👇9,250 (3%)
2007👇9,470 (4%)
2006👇9,810 (4%)
2005👇10,030 (4%)
2004☝10,310 (4%)
2003☝9,800 (4%)
9,600 (4%)
Estimated Non-Hodgkin lymphoma Deaths (Women)
2013👇8,430 (3%)
2012👇8,620 (3%)
2011☝9,570 (4%)
2010👇9,500 (4%)
2009☝9,670 (4%)
2008☝9,370 (3%)
2007☝9,060 (3%)

2006👇8,840 (3%)
2005☝9,050 (3%)
2004👇9,020 (3%)
2003👇11,200 (4%)
200211,700 (4%)
Estimated Uterine corpus Cancer Deaths (Women)
2013☝8,190 (3%)
2012👇8,010 (3%)
2011☝8,120 (3%)
2010☝7,950 (3%)
2009☝7,780 (3%)
2008☝7,470 (3%)
2007☝7,400 (3%)
2006☝7,350 (3%)
2005☝7,310 (3%)
2004☝7,090 (3%)
2003☝6,800 (3%)
6,600 (2%)
Estimated Liver and intrahepatic bile duct Cancer Deaths (Women)
2013☝6,780 (2%)
2012☝6,570 (2%)
2011☝6,330 (2%)
2010☝6,190 (2%)
2009☝6,070 (2%)
2008☝5,840 (2%)
5,500 (2%)
Estimated Multiple myeloma Cancer Deaths (Women)
2006👇5,630 (2%)
20055,640 (2%)
2004☝5,640 (2%)
2003☝5,500 (2%)
5,300 (2%)
Estimated New Cancer All (Women)
2013☝805,500 (100%)
2012☝790,740 (100%)
2011☝774,370 (100%)
2010☝739,940 (100%)
2009☝713,220 (100%)
2008☝692,000 (100%)

2007👇678,060 (100%)
2006☝679,510 (100%)
2005👇662,870 (100%)
2004☝668,470 (100%)
2003☝658,800 (100%)
_-_647,400 (100%)
Estimated New Breast Cancer (Women)
2013☝232,340 (29%)
2012👇226,870 (29%)
2011☝238,480 (30%)
2010☝207,090 (28%)
2009☝192,370 (27%)
2008☝182,460 (26%)

2007👇178,480 (26%)
2006☝212,920 (31%)
2005👇211,240 (32%)
2004☝215,900 (32%)
2003☝211,300 (32%)
_-_203,500 (31%)
Estimated New Lung and bronchus Cancer (Women)
2013☝110,110 (14%)
2012☝109,690 (14%)
2011☝106,070 (14%)
2010☝105,770 (14%)
2009☝103,350 (14%)
2008☝100,330 (14%)
2007☝98,620 (15%)
2006☝81,770 (12%)

2005👇79,560 (12%)
2004☝80,660 (12%)
2003☝80,100 (12%)
79,200 (12%)
Estimated New Colon and rectum Cancer (Women)
2013👇69,140 (9%)
2012☝70,040 (9%)
2011👇69,360 (9%)
2010👇70,480 (10%)
2009👇71,380 (10%)
2008👇71,560 (10%)
2007👇74,630 (11%)
2006☝75,810 (11%)
2005☝73,470 (11%)

2004👇73,320 (11%)
2003👇74,700 (11%)
200275,700 (12%)
Estimated New Uterine corpus Cancer (Women)
2013☝49,560 (6%)
2012☝47,130 (6%)
2011☝46,470 (6%)
2010☝43,470 (6%)
2009☝42,160 (6%)
2008☝41,100 (6%)

2007👇39,080 (6%)
2006☝41,200 (6%)
2005☝40,880 (6%)

2004👇40,320 (6%)
2003☝41,00 (6%)
39,300 (6%)
Estimated New Thyroid Cancer (Women)
2013☝45,310 (6%)
2012☝43,210 (5%)
2011☝36,550 (5%)
2010☝33,930 (5%)

2009👇27,200 (4%)
2008☝28,410 (4%)
2007☝25,480 (4%)
2006☝22,590 (3%)
2005☝19,190 (3%)
2004☝17,640 (3%)
2003☝16,300 (3%)
15,800 (2%)
Estimated New Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (Women)
2013☝32,140 (4%)
2012☝31,970 (4%)
2011☝30,300 (4%)
2010☝30,160 (4%)

2009👇29,990 (4%)
2008☝30,660 (4%)
2007☝28,990 (4%)
2006☝28,190 (4%)
2005☝27,320 (4%)
2004☝25,520 (4%)

2003👇25,100 (4%)
200225,700 (4%)
Estimated New Melanoma of the skin Cancer (Women)
2013👇31,630 (4%)
2012☝32,000 (4%)
2011☝30,220 (4%)

2010👇29,260 (4%)
2009☝29,640 (4%)
2008☝27,530 (4%)

2007👇26,030 (4%)
2006☝27,930 (4%)
2005☝26,000 (4%)
2004☝25,200 (4%)
2003☝24,300 (3%)
23,500 (4%)
Estimated New Kidney and renal pelvis Cancer (Women)
2013☝24,720 (3%)
2012☝24,520 (4%)
2011☝23,800 (3%)
2010☝22,870 (3%)
2009☝22,330 (3%)
2008☝21,260 (3%)
19,600 (3%)
Estimated New Pancreas Cancer (Women)
2013☝22,489 (3%)
2012👇21,830 (3%)
2011☝21,980 (3%)
2010☝21,770 (3%)
2009 21,420 (3%)

2006☝16,580 (2%)
2005👇16,080 (2%)
2004☝16,120 (2%)
2003☝15,800 (2%)
15,600 (2%)
Estimated New Ovary Cancer (Women)
2013👇22,240 (3%)
2012☝22,280 (3%)
2011☝21,990 (3%)
2010☝21,880 (3%)

2009👇21,550 (3%)
2008👇21,650 (3%)
2007☝22,430 (3%)
2006👇20,180 (3%)
2005👇22,220 (3%)
2004☝25,580 (4%)
2003☝25,400 (4%)
23,300 (4%)
Estimated New Leukemia (Women)
2008👇19,090 (3%)
200719,440 (3%)
Estimated New Urinary bladder Cancer (Women)
2006☝16,730 (2%)
2005☝16,200 (2%)
2004☝15,600 (2%)
15,200 (2%)
15,200 (2%)
Estimated All Cancer Deaths (Men)
2013☝306,920 (100%)
2012☝301,820 (100%)
2011☝300,430 (100%)
2010☝299,200 (100%)

2009👇292,540 (100%)
2008☝294,120 (100%)
2007👇289,550 (100%)
2006👇291,270 (100%)
2005☝295,280 (100%)
2004☝290,890 (100%)

2003👇285,900 (100%)
2002_-_288,200 (100%)
Estimated Lung and bronchus Deaths (Men)
2013👇87,260 (28%)
2012☝87,750 (29%)
2011👇85,600 (28%)
2010👇86,220 (29%)
2009👇88,900 (30%)
2008☝98,810 (31%)
2007👇89,510 (31%)
2006👇90,330 (31%)
2005👇90,490 (31%)
2004☝91,930 (32%)
2003👇88,400 (31%)
200289,200 (31%)
Estimated Prostate Cancer Deaths (Men)
2013☝29,720 (10%)
2012👇28,170 (9%)
2011☝33,720 (11%)
2010☝32,050 (11%)

2009👇27,360 (9%)
2008☝28,660 (10%)
2007👇27,050 (9%)
2006👇27,350 (9%)
2005☝30,350 (10%)
2004☝29,500 (10%)

2003👇28,900 (10%)
200230,200 (11%)
Estimated Colon and rectum Cancer Deaths (Men)
2013👇26,300 (9%)
2012☝26,470 (9%)
2011👇25,250 (8%)
2010☝26,580 (9%)
2009☝25,240 (9%)

2008👇24,260 (8%)
2007👇26,000 (9%)
2006👇27,870 (10%)
2005☝28,540 (10%)
2004☝28,320 (10%)
2003☝28,300 (10%)
27,800 (10%)
Estimated Pancreas Cancer Deaths (Men)
2013☝19,480 (6%)
2012👇18,850 (6%)
2011☝19,360 (3%)
2010☝18,770 (6%)
2009☝18,030 (6%)
2008☝17,500 (6%)
2007☝16,840 (6%)
2006☝16,090 (6%)
2005☝15,820 (5%)
2004☝15,440 (5%)
2003☝14,700 (5%)
14,500 (5%)
Estimated Liver and intrahepatic bile duct Cancer Deaths (Men)
2013☝14,890 (5%)
2012☝13,980 (5%)
2011☝13,260 (4%)
2010☝12,720 (4%)

2009👇12,090 (4%)
2008☝12,570 (4%)
2007☝11,280 (4%)
2006☝10,840 (4%)
2005☝10,330 (3%)
2004☝9,450 (3%)
2003☝9,200 (3%)
8,900 (3%)
Estimated Leukemia Deaths (Men)
2013☝13,660 (4%)
2012☝13,500 (4%)
2011☝12,740 (4%)
2010☝12,660 (4%)
2009☝12,590 (4%)
2008☝12,460 (4%)

2007👇12,320 (4%)
2006👇12,470 (4%)
2005👇12,540 (4%)
2004☝12,990 (5%)
12,100 (4%)
12,100 (4%)
Estimated Esophagus Cancer Deaths (Men)
2013☝12,220 (4%)
2012☝12,040 (4%)
2011☝11,910 (4%)
2010☝11,650 (4%)
2009☝11,490 (4%)
2008☝11,250 (4%)
2007☝10,900 (4%)
2006☝10,730 (4%)
2005☝10,530 (4%)
2004☝10,250 (4%)
2003☝9,900 (4%)
9,600 (3%)
Estimated Urinary bladder Cancer Deaths (Men)
2013☝10,820 (4%)
2012👇10,510 (3%)
2011☝10,670 (4%)
2010☝10,410 (3%)
2009☝10,180 (3%)
2008☝9,950 (3%)
2007☝9,630 (3%)
2006☝8,990 (3%)
2005☝8,970 (3%)
2004☝8,780 (3%)
8,600 (3%)
8,600 (3%)
Estimated Non-Hodgkin lymphoma Deaths (Men)
2013☝10,590 (3%)
2012☝10,320 (3%)

2011👇9,750 (3%)
2010☝10,710 (4%)
2009☝9,830 (3%)
2008☝9,790 (3%)

2007👇9,600 (3%)
2006👇10,000 (3%)
2005👇10,150 (3%)
2004👇10,390 (4%)
2003👇12,200 (4%)
200212,700 (5%)
Estimated Kidney and renal pelvis Cancer Deaths (Men)
2013☝8,780 (3%)
2012☝8,650 (3%)
2011☝8,270 (3%)
2010☝8,210 (3%)
2009☝8,160 (3%)
2008☝8,100 (3%)

2007👇8,080 (3%)
2006☝8,130 (3%)
2005☝8,020 (3%)
2004☝7,870 (3%)
2003☝7,409 (3%)
7,200 (3%)
Estimated New Cancer All (Men)
2013☝854,790 (100%)
2012☝848,170 (100%)
2011☝822,300 (100%)
2010☝789,620 (100%)
2009☝766,130 (100%)

2008👇745,180 (100%)
2007☝766,860 (100%)
2006☝720,280 (100%)
2005☝710,040 (100%)
2004☝699,560 (100%)
2003☝675,300 (100%)
_-_637,500 (100%)
Estimated New Prostate Cancer (Men)
2013👇238,590 (28%)
2012☝241,470 (29%)
2011☝240,890 (29%)
2010☝217,730 (28%)
2009☝192,280 (25%)

2008👇186,320 (25%)
2007👇218,890 (29%)
2006☝234,460 (33%)
2005☝232,090 (33%)
2004☝230,110 (33%)
2003☝220,900 (33%)
_-_189,000 (30%)
Estimated New Lung and bronchus Cancer (Men)
2013☝118,080 (14%)
2012☝116,470 (14%)

2011👇115,060 (14%)
2010☝116,750 (15%)
2009☝116,090 (15%)

2008👇114,690 (15%)
2007☝114,760 (15%)
2006👇92,700 (13%)
2005👇93,010 (13%)
2004☝93,110 (13%)
2003☝91,800 (14%)
90,200 (14%)
Estimated New Colon and rectum Cancer (Men)
2013☝73,680 (13%)
2012☝73,420 (9%)

2011👇71,850 (9%)
2010👇72,090 (9%)
2009👇75,590 (10%)
2008👇77,250 (10%)
2007☝79,130 (10%)
2006☝72,800 (10%)

2005👇71,820 (10%)
2004☝73,620 (11%)
2003☝72,800 (11%)
72,600 (11%)
Estimated New Urinary bladder Cancer (Men)
2013👇54,610 (6%)
2012☝55,600 (7%)
2011👇52,020 (6%)
2010👇52,760 (7%)
2009☝52,810 (7%)
2008☝51,230 (7%)
2007☝50,040 (7%)

2006👇44,690 (6%)
2005☝47,010 (7%)
2004☝44,640 (6%)
2003☝42,200 (6%)
41,500 (7%)
Estimated New Melanoma of the skin Cancer (Men)
2013☝45,060 (5%)
2012☝44,250 (5%)
2011☝40,010 (5%)

2010👇38,870 (5%)
2009☝39,080 (5%)
2008☝34,950 (5%)

2007👇33,910 (4%)
2006☝34,260 (5%)
2005☝33,580 (5%)
2004 – 29,900 (4%)

2003👇29,900 (4%)
200230,100 (5%)
Estimated New Kidney and renal pelvis Cancer (Men)
2013☝40,430 (5%)
2012☝40,250 (5%)
2011☝37,120 (5%)

2010👇35,370 (4%)
2009☝35,430 (5%)
2008☝33,130 (4%)
2007☝31,590 (4%)
2006☝24,650 (3%)
2005☝22,490 (3%)
2004☝22,080 (3%)
2003☝19,500 (3%)
19,100 (3%)
Estimated New Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (Men)
2013👇37,600 (4%)
2012☝38,160 (4%)
2011☝36,060 (4%)

2010👇35,380 (4%)
2009☝35,990 (5%)
2008☝35,450 (5%)
2007☝34,200 (4%)
2006☝30,680 (4%)
2005☝29,070 (4%)
2004☝28,850 (4%)
2003☝28,300 (4%)
28,200 (4%)
Estimated New Oral cavity and pharynx Cancer (Men)
2013☝29,620 (3%)
2012☝28,540 (3%)
2011☝27,710 (3%)
2010☝25,420 (3%)

2009👇25,240 (3%)
2008☝25,310 (3%)
2007☝24,180 (3%)
2006☝20,180 (3%)
2005☝19,100 (3%)
2004☝18,550 (3%)

2003👇18,200 (3%)
200218,900 (3%)
Estimated New Leukemia (Men)
2013☝27,880 (3%)
2012☝26,830 (3%)
2011☝25,320 (3%)

2010👇24,690 (3%)
2009☝25,630 (3%)
2008☝25,180 (3%)
2007☝24,800 (3%)
2006☝20,000 (3%)
2005☝19,640 (3%)
2004☝19,020 (3%)
2003☝17,900 (3%)
17,600 (3%)
Estimated New Pancreas Cancer (Men)
2013☝22,740 (3%)
2012☝22,090 (3%)
2011☝22,050 (3%)
2010☝21,370 (3%)
2009☝21,050 (3%)

2008👇18,770 (3%)
2007☝18,830 (2%)
2006☝17,150 (2%)
2005☝16,109 (2%)
2004☝15,740 (2%)
2003☝14,900 (2%)
14,700 (2%)


American Cancer Society
Cancer Facts & Figures

More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives

Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.

Emeritus professor Environmental and Occupational Medicine

University of Illinois School of Public Health


Chairman, The Cancer Prevention Coalition

Click to access acspc-036845.pdf


Click to access acspc-036845.pdf


Click to access acspc-031941.pdf


Click to access acspc-031941.pdf


Click to access acspc-029771.pdf


Click to access acspc-029771.pdf


Click to access acspc-024113.pdf


Click to access acspc-024113.pdf


Click to access 500809webpdf.pdf


Click to access 500809webpdf.pdf


Click to access worldcancer.pdf


Click to access caff2007pwsecuredpdf.pdf


Click to access caff2007pwsecuredpdf.pdf


Click to access caff2006pwsecuredpdf.pdf


Click to access caff2006pwsecuredpdf.pdf


Click to access caff2005f4pwsecuredpdf.pdf


Click to access caff2005f4pwsecuredpdf.pdf


Click to access CancerRates2004.pdf


Click to access 2003_ACS_Cancer_Facts.pdf


Click to access CancerFacts&Figures2002.pdf


Pete Cohen chats with Dr. Juan F. Martinez-Canca, Neurosurgeon (Consultant) about Hannah Bradley

Juan F. Martinez-Canca – Consultant – Neurosurgeon
So tell me a little about brain tumors

When did you kind of first come across your first brain tumor ?

My very first brain tumor was in high school, unknown entity, fascinating, enigmatic

Unknown, is the word

Uh yes, I hoped

I must say the uh vocation initially in my case came at an early stage in my life

I remember very well, 3 years old saying I will be a doctor, a doctor, a doctor, and gradually I became aware of this vocation from neurosurgery but really I didn’t know what from because of vocations like see it
I put in my soul, so what ?
Here we are

realize that in the following years
My first professional brain tumor was impressed in 1996, something called glioblastoma multiforme, and I was uh, uh, shocked, and thrilled, and excited by seeing a nasty glioma as my register described it

And I was uh in as you can see my poor English
I just wrote in my notebook nasty glioma must be nasty in the history of classification

That person died, unfortunately after a few months, it was a very bad disease, at that stage, was really advanced and uh that was my first ? with reality
The glioblastoma, or nasty gliomas kill people
And that was the starting point of a, of a very complex process that I am still never looking (?)
Hannah’s Operation (1:35)
In the case of Hannah we wanted to wake her up to make sure that we could remove the whole entire ter (?) as much as we can see, or feel it, without damaging, basic structures

Language, relation with outside world, movement, etcetera, etcetera

That requires a very specific and very expert high expertise from the, from the surgeon, because normally everyone is not awake during this
It’s a very specific operation

Mr ? we were lucky, was there to do it, and I was lucky enough to be the co-pilot

So we performed this procedure
I can’t remember the date now

April, the 1st

Good date

April Fools Day

On April the 1st we awakened ?
and I remember very well, that huge feeling of satisfaction, at the end of the procedure

I have, I still have my pictures, do you remember ?

We were taking some pictures during the operation
and that is ? like a trophy, because some people are not very good, some of the people are not very well, but in this case we had fantastic surgeon, a fantastic patient, and a great environment, and it worked very well
And the end of the operation, I remember seeing Hannah’s brain without physical tumor, microscopic means with the eyes
Of course, millions and millions of cells still widespread in the brain
A tumor is never a circumscribed entity
It goes all over the place
Nevertheless, it was a very satisfactory physical procedure
We send the samples for histological purposes
and unfortunately we were wrong, because it was not a grade 2, not a grade 1, it was a grade 3 tumor
? the next step
The grading of the tumors
When grade 1’s and 2’s, usually consider the good guys in the field
But not a good thing to have a brain tumor, but you have to choose, choose a grade 1, or a grade 2
Grades 3 and 4 featured by malignancy
By aggressiveness
They are far more active tumors than the 1’s and 2’s
Maybe the grow much bigger, and they are far more aggressive than the other 2
Specially grade 4
So you got out most of it, yeah ?

Yeah, it was fun but got a good job here because you’ve got most of the tumor out, and we have Hannah talking, moving, and uh conversing normally
She was no percentage (?) deficit
At some point during the operation she had some stuff, a fitting, some sort of vagueness and she couldn’t talk very well, so we had to stop right away, and change the level of, of oxygenation, but other the operation, microscopically speaking, the whole tumor was taken away

So the tumor was taken away, so it was a success, but in the back of your mind did you know that, did, the job was not complete ?

We always know
We always know that
Except when we are talking with a benign meningeal (?) grade 1 that we can take physically lump away
Except in those cases of rare, rare success and joy
Most of the tumors we know, have millions of cells that remain in the brain, and they can be very, very aggressive

So, did you know in the back of your mind that what you were really doing, in this case, was probably just prolonging her life ?

Uh, in a way we are providing a setting, for a 2nd stage therapy to take place
Certainly, if we do nothing about it in the large (?), which is a (?) part of her brain, Hannah had little chance to survive, many weeks from now
Once the whole thing developed, we knew it was a count down
We need to do 2 things, to establish a way to help her to prolong her life with best programs
That’s, is a universally accepted
Removing a tumor is no longer an option
Again, I believe that (camcorder ?)


So Hannah had radiotherapy, and you saw the scans after the radiotherapy, and, and what did you see ?

We decided, no Hannah decided to go through conventional pathways of treating of tumors, which is oncology medicine (?)
She had radiotherapy, which aim is to kill the remaining cells we have not been able to remove, remove in surgery

So, that happens, and Hannah had a shrinking stage of uh of things, with subsequent scans show the suc success
It was not much tumor
However, the remaining amount of cells were there from day one
We knew they existed, and they were visible on the scan
We could actually produce the scans later right ?


And I will show you pictures of Hannah
And we knew there was (reserve ?) tumor
The aim of the radiotherapy was to try and kill these remnants of tumor that have remained behind
In her case, it was not much tumor left, because we know that subsequent scans were done following radiotherapy
Still the small areas of tumor highlighting halo were still here, as you, as a (?), as a reminder, of the main tumor

Inevitably those cells would progress again, to a further tumor, and usually, to a high grade tumor where the tumor progressed, normally is not rare, to see that they, scale one grade
So, the fear here with Hannah was get, this grade 3, would progress to grade 4 at some point
Dr. Martinez on Dr. Burzynski (6:50)
Quite obviously you knew that I did a lot of investigating

I looked for people in the world who were still alive, who had uh, this type of tumor

I spoke to you

You told me, of, some things uh, and I’d mentioned to you Dr. Burzynski

What did you

What did you think about that when I 1st mentioned it to you ?

Well, when you mentioned that to me I didn’t know Dr. Burzynski at all

I knew there were some people going to Houston for some therapy, among them, one well known Spanish singer, but she’s well known, very well known actually, going from a, from a another kind of tumor, not a, not a brain tumor
But I knew vaguely about this a, this a person in, in Texas, with his uh fancy treatment, challenging establishment, but, as I said, a little
amount of, of knowledge in my brain
in my brain
Well, I knew immediately when you mentioned that, as well as other options that we discussed, I looked at every option you’ve showed me, because you were really active in looking and intimate, in the literature
You gave me 2 or 3 main leads of reading, but certainly Burzynski came as the most solid one, because the rest of them you gave me were really experimental therapies, with little or no success, and uh more in my dimension but more imagination than technique, with them
So, I look at Burzynski’s story, and was almost immediately moved about, about his personal uh yearning
Is a person who has been, how many years now ?
20+ ?


30+, sorry, fighting against the very powerful medical establishment, and subjected to court judgments, to punishment by a, by a (?) community, to intense scrutiny, and uh, ostracized by the so-called uh conventional doctors
Despite that, 30 years + later, still doing his business, in fact, the most important thing, with a huge amount of people, smiling, alive, and very healthy following the diagnosis of the tumor
To me that was something revealing
No matter whether this man advocates, on praying to the moon, or going to the sea, (whatever it is ?)
The fact is the fact
He has a large # of patients, alive and well, following diagnosis of tumor
In fact, the most important, children, at the age of 3 or 4, being treated by this uh therapy, reaching 30’s, reaching 20’s, and alive, and very nice, this a living example, that this man, is not uh, selling air
For that I went to the films, available to everyone on the Internet, on YouTube, except the usual terms of communication
I dislike very much, they commit (?)
I really dislike it
But, I must admit it was a good way, to put the facts to the public
This way
The main criticism of Burzynski in the scientific community, is the lack of reliable communications
That, that’s a fact
I will not go into this during this interview, this chat


Because I think it’s a matter for, further discussion
I only go to the physical facts that you can see
In the last court proceedings, there were a large # of supporters, saying, we are the living example, of this process isn’t pantomime (?)
Well I think in my humble microscopical opinion, Burzyn, Burzynski’s trying to do, is to show another way to treat cancer

Another way which directs completely from the current guidelines
The current guidelines are full of financial interests, are full of international agreements, and of course someone who attempts to upset this structure will face serious adversity
This man is brave enough to put his person, his family, his world, on the spot, to fight for the truth
To me, it’s clear
This guy, not going into details again, I don’t want to go into technical details today, because something for further discussion, but only the facts he’s presented, is strong enough to stop and think about it
That’s why, I would like to say, in the 1st instance

And obviously you’ve seen Hannah’s su, scans, and you saw her last scan, and you can see uh her

Well since you told me about this, I intense look at the Internet again, all the available evidence, I looked at his, uh, not publications but at his data
I, I have no peer-review qualifications yet, about Burzynski’s cases, but I look at practical cases
Too many, to be a random chance of, oh this is, she has a one in a million
No, it has, many ones in a million to be a chance
So this man is presenting something serious
So, I ask (?) (?)
Forced to do, because, I thought, ok, what you face here is a conventional radiotherapy, chemotherapy, but if you look at the #’s, that is again, in the public domain, people with grade 3’s, will not survive longer
Grade 4’s, do not survive longer
My duty as doctor is to tell the patient, the person with the grade 4 tumor, you have about 11 months to live without treatment
Be lucky
With treatment is unpredictable
(I don’t know ? or all along ?)
But the #’s are #’s
If you look at the data, people die very quickly from a grade 4
Grade 3, follows very closely
So I thought, there’s nothing to lose by this therapy, because #1 is not incompatible wha, with what you have been doing so far, and it gives you a chance to change perspective, to change environment
Go to a different setting, and try it
That’s a fact (?)
Plus the fact that many, many, many people are being treated (?)
under this guidance, and they are surviving very well, and they are alive


Hannah’s case
When are you going to Texas ?

We went in December

Well you come back just a few days ago

We came back 3 weeks ago in January

So in that period Hannah had her tumor treated with antineoplastons, and there has already been a scan, which shows shrinking of 15%


Is such a long, long journey, you have a nice little period, a month and a 1/2 maybe ?


After so many months of punishment and suffering, and which have a nice (result ?)
Plus, the emotion of Hannah
Hannah has come back to normal, I think
I remember her very depressed and the beginning of story, and not having any single hope in her mind
I remember a video where she was crying
Now she has this chuckle in the video when she is joking about the scan, and so positive and optimistic, and the results cannot be more promising
That, in my view, (certain was seen ?) in detail, I think
Hannah’s MRI scans (13:34)
Take a look at this
This area of bright, intensity here, is not in the right, so poorly, is abnormal
And that was the 1st pictures we saw for Hannah
And some people said, that must be a stroke because of this a straight line there, and there
Normally, as a rule of thumb, something with a wedge shape, tends to be a stroke, because the vessel, providing blood, opens in the small vessels in a wedge fashion
It look a stroke to me actually, to, to be, to be honest, the very fact that we thought it was a stroke, but then we came to recognize it was a tumor, for all the features in (?)
So this is the 1st picture
If we look at the, on the side of the screen, we have now a different view
Instead of looking from the feet, we’re looking at front of Hannah
Eyes are here
That’s the brain
Left side
Right side
Look at the left side, because we know, the tumor’s (?) on the left
We look to go, deeper in her head, and we see, a dark area
It’s a different fashion (?) and that’s why you can see the white, becomes like a black
And you can see, the edges of this is strange, formation
Clearly abnormal because nothing there in the side
So this, was the question for the individual
What is it ?
So after a little bit of discussion we came to the conclusion that thought it was a glioma, tumor, from description, in the brain

This is after the operation

After the operation


This is the 17th through the 4th

We go on the right side better because this is the film
We see here something very clear
I want to get another view, so you understand a little bit better
Yeah, this
In this view, you can see
Can you see that ?


You can see the (?)
The chunk of bone, we take away, to go into the brain
And these are screws and plates, to keep things in place
2 screws, one little plate
And there, the other one
Ok ?
So this is the axis
Let’s put it on the right so you can see it better
Here, you can see it much better how the craniotomy is performed with one hole, one drill, to put the, the saw and drill away, and you can lift this cover
Ok ?
At the end of the operation we put this plates, one there, one there, one there, and one there, as you can see
2 little plates
2 little screws with one plate to fix the hole
Ok ?
And then, the skin itself
The Future for the Treatment of Cancer (16:18)
So, so how do you think uh brain tumors will be treated in the future ?

That’s a, that’s a very good question
Uh, certainly not this way
Let me give an answer for another time
But certainly not this way, because uh the chemotherapy, the main, the main group of chemotherapy is that, it is itself a killing agent
You are using, destructive element, to try and prolong life
In, in itself makes no sense to me
Of course, the, the argument for that from the, from the (chemical ?) companies, from the people who produce this (?), excuse me, this doctor, we are saving lives, and it’s true
This is the only way, officially admitted today, to treat tumors, chemotherapy

So do you think we’ll have a cure for cancer ?

I’m hope it is
I think it’s coming, actually, but uh, but uh, it’s not accepted

Then you think Dr. Burzynski’s really on to something ?

The evidence is overwhelming
He’s not I think, the evidence
What I think is irrelevant
Oh my opinion is one opinion in, in millions of them
But if you look at the facts, Dr. Burzynski is achieving things
It’s not, it’s not promising
Is it
It’s the delivery of things
If, if I don’t understand it incorrectly
The head of our patients, he’s an ex-patient of cancer
Am I right ?
This girl had a brain tumor
Hannah was talking to people have been cured
So this is a fact
This is not tales
This is not uh, uh, selling, thin air
This man, whatever he’s doing, because of his story
Part of his secret agenda, the
chemicals (?)
be explained
I not asking for the patent of his things
I don’t, I don’t care anyway
But he’s working with compounds, with substances created by this man, that cure people

So why do you think more people aren’t receptive, to the, you know, other oncologists, neurosurgeons ?

That’s a very complex question because uh we are fighting against a very well established protocol of producing doctors that think in a very particular way
Who, whoever decides to direct from that way of thinking is in hot water
The scientific community these days, is uh biased by peer-reviewed publications, commonly accepted guidelines, and there’s no space whatsoever, for any, eh, diversion from the norm
Put it this way
I’m not saying that I directed (?) from norm
I’m not here to argue the system, but I am here, to ask questions
I would like to ask questions
Why, we have to accept
I was in medical school, and I was told by a pediatrician, (?) of the (?) service, babies should a stop breast feeding at the month #4, and they start with these magic formulas for babies
At that, at that point I believed
At that point I was a very young medical student
I said, (?) the head of pediatricians tell me, my baby has to stop breast feeding, at the age of 4 months, must be true
He is a doctor, but he’s a stupid (doc ?
I am so sorry to disagree
He was delivering, a very nasty message
Basically you should continue, 2 years away, 3 years away, when the baby says, that’s it
Naturally stop the breast feeding
You understand what I mean ?
So, in the same fashion, the oncologist delivers the message that they have been taught, by the teachers
And then you go up in the scale
If you go up in the pyramid, the top of the pyramid is usually money, eh, economic interests, political interests, namely
We go outside the core mains of medicine
That’s why my complaint
That’s why my fight here
I would like to ask those things
I may be wrong, by at the end of the day
I may be
I don’t know
I don’t know all the answers
But if at the end of very good search, I am convinced that this is the only way, I say, I am sorry
I had to ask
Go back to the norm
But (?)
I totally suspect that the norm is wrong
There must be another way