Critiquing: Families run out of hope, money after cancer treatments (USA TODAY NEWS, NATION, Liz Szabo, USA TODAY)

USA TODAY
Liz Szabo
Michael Stravato
Jerry Mosemak
Robert Hanashiro

Before you write a Hack Piece
Check Your Facts Please

——————————————————————

20131118-084404.jpg
——————————————————————
The 3rd, and thankfully final segment of USA TODAY’s “hit-piece” of irresponsible yellow journalism about Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski [1], contains the following:
——————————————————————
“Patients stay in hotels while visiting him”
——————————————————————
Pete Cohen made this movie about his and
Hannah Bradley’s trip to the Burzynski Clinic

It does NOT look like they stayed in a hotel [2]
——————————————————————
The article continues:
——————————————————————
“If children deteriorate, they often end up in the closest emergency room, said physician Jeanine Graf, director of the pediatric intensive care unit at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, who says she has treated at least a dozen of Burzynski’s patients
——————————————————————
In the 2nd segment of USA TODAY’s yellow journalism “hit-piece,” the reader was advised that Burzynski had treated [3]:
——————————————————————
โ€œ . . . more than 8,000 patients since 1977.โ€
——————————————————————
Physician Jeanine Graf, “says she has treated at least a dozen of Burzynskiโ€™smore than 8,000 patients,”

This means that Dr. Graf has treated LESS THAN 0.15% of Burzynski’s patients
——————————————————————
The article indicates that:
——————————————————————
“Typically, Graf sees Burzynski’s patients after they have become unresponsive, unable to open their eyes or breathe on their own”

“Graf says she’s never seen Burzynski attending to them”
——————————————————————
Why would she ?

Does she ride in the ambulance to and from the clinic ?

As the article makes clear:

“While Burzynski often meets patients on their first trip to the clinic, Jaffe said he is

“not the treating physician of the clinic’s patients”

“The doctors on Burzynski’s staff have admitting privileges at local hospitals and “attend to patients as needed,” Jaffe said”
——————————————————————
And she continues:
——————————————————————
“And describing her personal experience with Burzynski’s patients, Graf says,”

“I’ve never seen one survive long-term.”
——————————————————————
Are we supposed to believe that pediatric physician Jeanine Graf keeps track of the “more than 8,000 patients” that the article claims Burzynski has treated ?
——————————————————————
Continuing on, the article also claims:
——————————————————————
“The unlucky ones end up broke, spending everything on medicine, airfare, hotel rooms and meals while in Houston, Graf says

“Burzynski’s attorney, Richard Jaffe, notes that all cancer care is expensive”

“I think the clinic’s policies are a lot more charitable than the big institutions,” Jaffe says”
——————————————————————
6/25/2013 – Medical Bills Are the Biggest Cause of US Bankruptcies [4]

“Bankruptcies resulting from unpaid medical bills will affect nearly 2 million people this yearโ€”making health care the No. 1 cause of such filings . . . according to new data”

“. . . estimates that households containing 1.7 million people will file for bankruptcy protection this year

“Even outside of bankruptcy, about 56 million adultsโ€”more than 20 percent of the population between the ages of 19 and 64โ€”will still struggle with health-care-related bills this year . . .”

“Despite the anticipated 2013 dip, such bankruptcies represent about three out of every five filings
——————————————————————
2007 – How Many Americans Go Bankrupt Due to Medical Purposes Each Year? [5]

“2007, a Harvard study shows that at least 60% of bankruptcies are related to medical bills

“Even people with health insurance are filing bankruptcy”

“Insurance premiums, deductibles, co-pay, and out of pocket expenses cause medical bills to drown individuals and families in medical debt”

“Harvard also discovered that 75% of those filing bankruptcy for medical reasons had health insurance

“It is clear that having health insurance is no guarantee against carrying debt related to health care”
——————————————————————
Burzynski has treated more than 8,000 patients since 1977

8,000 divided by 36 years equals an average of:

222 patients per year

Burzynski is obviously NOT the problem
——————————————————————
Liz Szabo, Michael Stravato, Jerry Mosemak, and Robert Hanashiro

Don’t quit your day jobs

USA TODAY needs to generate readership somehow !!!
——————————————————————
Sarcasm . . . deal with it
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – 11/15/2013
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/15/jeanine-graf-cancer-children/2994675/
======================================
[2]Hannah’s Anectdote:
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”

======================================
[3] – 11/16/2013 – Critiquing: Doctor accused of selling false hope to families (USA TODAY NEWS, NATION, Liz Szabo, USA TODAY):
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/16/httpwww-usatoday-comstorynewsnation20131115stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-controversy2994561/
======================================
[4] – 06/25/13 2:29 PM ETโ€”By CNBC’s Dan Mangan @danpostman
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148
======================================
[5] – 2007 – Written by James Hirby | Fact checked by The Law Dictionary staff
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
http://thelawdictionary.org/article/how-many-americans-go-bankrupt-due-to-medical-purposes-each-year/
======================================

20131116-002818.jpg

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

20131116-002847.jpg
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 Skepticsโ„ข 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.”
——————————————————————

20131116-004037.jpg
——————————————————————
However, if you select the “8,000 patients” link, the referenced page does NOT indicate that at all [2]
——————————————————————

20131116-064344.jpg
——————————————————————
It advises:
——————————————————————
“That same year, Dr. Burzynski founded his clinic in Houston where he’s since treated over 8,000 patients.” [3]
——————————————————————

20131116-064326.jpg
——————————————————————
Nowhere does it indicate that he “treated 8,000 patients” with antineoplastons
——————————————————————

20131116-064409.jpg
——————————————————————
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:

โ€ โ€ฆ 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 Companyโ€™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 Toriโ€™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 ยฝ 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 Millerโ€™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 theyโ€™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: Thatโ€™s normal ?

A: “Yes”
“So”

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)”
——————————————————————

20131116-164617.jpg

20131021-200529.jpg

20131021-200553.jpg
——————————————————————
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 trial โ€” now in its 17th year โ€” 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:
——————————————————————
Burzynskiโ€™s lawyer is obviously referring to the CAN-1 clinical trial mentioned in Burzynskiโ€™s 11/25/1997 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing [11]
——————————————————————
One trial that is retrospective is CAN-1 Clinical Trial
——————————————————————
CAN-1 PHASE II STUDY OF ANTINEOPLASTONS A10 AND AS2-1 IN

PATIENTS WITH REFRACTORY MALIGNANCIES

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)

Yeah

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

Mmm

“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 thatโ€™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
[15]
——————————————————————
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
——————————————————————
2013โ˜39,620 (14%)
2012๐Ÿ‘‡39,510 (14%)
2011๐Ÿ‘‡39,520 (15%)
2010๐Ÿ‘‡39,840 (15%)
2009๐Ÿ‘‡40,170 (15%)
2008โ˜40,480 (15%)
2007๐Ÿ‘‡40,460 (15%)
2006โ˜40,970 (15%)
2005๐Ÿ‘‡40,410 (15%)
2004โ˜40,110 (15%)
2003โ˜39,800 (15%)
2002
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
——————————————————————
2013โ˜232,340 (29%)
2012๐Ÿ‘‡226,870 (29%)
2011โ˜238,480 (30%)
2010โ˜207,090 (28%)
2009โ˜192,370 (27%)
2008โ˜182,460 (26%)

2007๐Ÿ‘‡178,480 (26%)
2006โ˜212,920 (31%)
2005๐Ÿ‘‡211,240 (32%)
2004โ˜215,900 (32%)
2003โ˜211,300 (32%)
2002
_-_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 Skepticsโ„ข” refuse to discuss:
——————————————————————
2/13/2013 โ€“ 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 Childrenโ€™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
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
You’ve just been served, INSOLENTLY
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
USA TODAY, GONE TOMORROW
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”

20131116-084820.jpg

20131116-085357.jpg

20131116-084833.jpg

20131116-084847.jpg

20131116-084909.jpg

20131116-084924.jpg

20131116-084937.jpg

20131116-085152.jpg

20131116-085218.jpg

20131116-085311.jpg

20131116-085436.jpg

20131116-085528.jpg

20131116-085550.jpg

20131116-085608.jpg

20131116-085629.jpg

20131116-084804.jpg

20131116-084745.jpg
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – 11/15/2013 – USA TODAY NEWS, NATION
Doctor accused of selling false hope to families
Liz Szabo, USA TODAY
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/15/stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-controversy/2994561/
======================================
[2] – Mayo Clinic – 1999 – report: Lisa Merritt
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/816819-mayo-clinic-1999-report.html
======================================
[3] – 2012 – former Burzynski web-site screenshots, Pg 3 of 62;
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
http://www.circare.org/info/bri/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 Companyโ€™s Antineoplaston CLINICAL TRIALS:
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/burzynski-fda-requirements-that-cancer-patients-utilize-more-traditional-cancer-treatment-options-in-order-to-be-eligible-to-participate-in-the-companys-antineoplaston-clinical-trials/
======================================
[5] – 11/14/2013 – Critiquing: Why we fight for patients (Why we fight your patience) TAM 2013, TAM2013, โ€œThe Amazing Meetingโ€ 2013 #TAM2013 http://www.theamazingmeeting.com
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/14/tam-2013-tam2013-tam2013-the-amazing-meeting-2013-the-amazing-meeting-httptheamazingmeeting-com-httpwww-theamazingmeeting-com/
======================================
[6] – Phenomenon – Brain Tumour Foundation of Canada
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
http://www.braintumour.ca/1649/ask-the-expert-psuedo-progression-gbm
======================================
[7] – Pseudoprogression following chemoradiotherapy for glioblastoma multiforme
Can J Neurol Sci. 2010 Jan;37(1):36-42
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20169771/
======================================
[8] – 9/19/2013 – Critiquing: National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) CancerNet โ€œfact sheetโ€ :
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/critiquing-national-cancer-institute-nci-at-the-national-institutes-of-health-nih-cancernet/
======================================
[9] – FDA Orphan Drug Designation
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
http://www.burzynskiresearch.com/assets/PressRelease_12022008_BZYR(2).pdf
======================================
[10] – 11/7/2013Pete Cohen chats with Sonali Patil, Ph.D., Research Scientist at The Burzynski Clinic:
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/07/pete-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:
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/burzynski-the-original-72-phase-ii-clinical-trials/
======================================
[12] – 8/21/2013 – Critiquing David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/critiquing-david-h-gorski-md-phd-facs-www-sciencebasedmedicine-orgeditorial-staffdavid-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
======================================
[13] – 2003 – pg. 94
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/960.pdf
======================================
[14] – 3/1982 – Biometrics 1982; 38: 143-51
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7082756/
======================================
[15] – 11/9/2013Pete Cohen chats with Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski โ€“ Interview #2:
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/pete-cohen-chats-with-dr-stanislaw-burzynski-interwiew-2/
======================================
[16] โ€“ AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY: More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
http://www.wnho.net/acs.pdf
======================================
[17] – 9/11/2013 – National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest:
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/national-cancer-institute-and-american-cancer-society-criminal-indifference-to-cancer-prevention-and-conflicts-of-interest/
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
[18] – 11/13/2013 – The War on Cancer (I donโ€™t think it means, what you think it says it means) #Winning?
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/httpcancer-orgacsgroupscontentepidemiologysurveilancedocumentsdocumentacspc-036845-pdf/
======================================
[19] – 4/24/2013 – Burzynski: HYPERNATREMIA:
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/burzynski-hypernatremia/
======================================
[20] – 9/1999 โ€“ Pediatrics. 1999 Sep;104(3 Pt 1):435-9
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10469766/
======================================

20131116-002912.jpg

“The Amazing Meeting” (I don’t think it means, what you think it says it means): 2 Intellectually and Ethically Challenged Individuals, Twaddle at TAM 2013

Gentlemen, I start your Insolence ๐Ÿ˜‡
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
(1:30) [1]
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
The “motto” of “The Amazing (Not so Much) Meeting” is “Fighting Fakers,” which is apropos, since I doubt that “Orac” the “Check my Facts” Hack of Dr. David H. Gorski, grasps the irony, that when I read some of his blog articles, you could easily switch his name with the name of some individual he is flogging, and the proverbial shoe fits, and:
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
(1:40)
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
“This is a guy who sometimes fools even, you know, physicians”
——————————————————————
(I couldn’t have said it better, myself) ๐Ÿ˜Š
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
(2:47)
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
He states:

“There is a long segment about “The Skeptics”

(applause) ๐Ÿ˜
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
(4:25)
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
“His lawyer wrote a book”

“About a half of it is about Burzynski [4]
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
6:00
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
Gorski mentions that Burzynski noticed that there were higher levels of these chemicals in healthy people, than people with cancer
——————————————————————
Whereas, Burzynski is on record as having said [5]:

” . . . healthy people have abundance of these chemicals in blood
Cancer patients have varied to none

I did NOT know before now, that GorskGeek thinks that “none” is a “level” ๐Ÿ˜ถ
——————————————————————
He continues:

AS2.1 – which is a chemical called phenylacetic acid, which is a byproduct of metabolism that turns into phenylacetylglutamine by the liver

A10 – soluble is basically the same thing
It breaks down to PAG
——————————————————————
WOW !

I thought it was: AS2 1 ๐Ÿ˜Š

They are “basically the same thing” ? ๐Ÿ˜ณ

What does Burzynski say ? [6]

Phenylacetylglutaminate (PG) and Phenylacetate (PN) are metabolites of Phenylbutyrate (PB) and are constituents of antineoplaston AS2-1

PG and PN are naturally occurring in human body as result of metabolism of phenylalanine in liver and kidneys

formulation of antineoplaston AS2-1 is 4:1 mixture of synthetic PN and PG

A10 is 4:1 mixture of PG and iso-PG

That does NOT look like “basically the same thing” to me ๐Ÿ˜›

20131111-160455.jpg
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
(6:50)
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
Gorski founders on:

“And these are substances which were actually studied in the ’50’s and ’60’s and not found to be particularly, um, promising, but, he didn’t know that then”
——————————————————————
GorskGeek has #FAILED miserably to prove that on his blogs [7] ๐Ÿ˜„
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
(8:00)
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
Gorski comments about Burzynski’s “animal testing,” “species specific” claims:

“There are ways of getting around that”
——————————————————————
But Gorski, again, has #FAILED miserably to prove it [8] ๐Ÿ˜…
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
(12:00)
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
Gorski makes lame excuses about the NCI phase II clinical trial [9] ๐Ÿ˜–
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
(12:50)
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
Gorski claims Burzynski was indicted for insurance fraud in the 1997 case ๐Ÿ˜ฑ
——————————————————————
GorskGeek, care to try and prove that one also ? [10] ๐Ÿ˜ƒ
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
(14:25)
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
Gorski then states that out of 61 trials on clinicaltrials . gov, “most” are “closed or unknown”
——————————————————————
GorskGeek #FAILED again ๐Ÿ˜

At the time it was:

1 โ€“ Not Yet Recruiting
(OPEN)(Phase 3)
1 โ€“ COMPLETED
2 โ€“ WITHDRAWN
(Withdrawn due to slow enrollment)
7 โ€“ WITHDRAWN
(This study has been withdrawn prior to enrollment)
(9=WITHDRAWN)
10 โ€“ Recruiting
(10=OPEN)
40 โ€“ Active, not recruiting –
(40=CLOSED)
61 =TOTAL
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
(15:20)
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
Gorski attempts to go all “legal eagle”:

“Listen to Burzynski’s lawyer!”

“You listen to Burzynski’s lawyer; and, and I swear I don’t understand, like why Burzynski would let him, let his lawyer say stuff this damning in his own book, but he does”

“So, get a load of some of these quotes, referring to one of the clinical trials, he says:”

“It was a joke”

“. . . there could not be any possibility of meaningful data coming out of the so-called clinical trial, it was all an artifice, that, you know, designed so that they could continue giving the treatment

“The FDA wanted all of his patients to be on an IND, so, that’s what we did”
——————————————————————
Gorski, attorney Rick Jaffe is an American, living in America NOT the formerly communist Poland

He can say whatever he wants

GorskGeek is NOT a lawyer ๐Ÿ˜“

And there’s an excellent reason why

Nor is he schooled in the proper usage of the English language

FACT:

” . . . the so-called clinical trial . . .”

Any human being with a modicum of intelligence about the English language, understands that the term “clinical trial” is singular, i.e. one

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
——————————————————————
CAN-1 PHASE II STUDY OF ANTINEOPLASTONS A10 AND AS2-1 IN

PATIENTS WITH REFRACTORY MALIGNANCIES

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
——————————————————————
Gorski continues his trend of #FAILURES when he mentions the additional types of treatments that Burzynski was offering, but he #FAILED to mention [12] ๐Ÿ˜‚
——————————————————————
โ€ โ€ฆ 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 Companyโ€™s Antineoplaston clinical trials”
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
(18:20)
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
Gorski addresses the case of Tori Moreno
——————————————————————
Kim Moreno states:

“We originally were at Millerโ€™s Children at Long Beach Memorial and then went to City of Hope

“We also sent her MRIโ€™s to Dr. Fred Epstein in New York to be looked at”

Gorski suggests that 3 different opinions could have misdiagnosed Tori Moreno

You can read an interview with Tori’s mother [13]
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
(19:45)
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
Gorski goes on to mention Burzynski patients going to Texas Children’s Hospital with hypernatremia issues
——————————————————————
Gorski, do you mean this ? [14]

The changing pattern of hypernatremia in hospitalized children

Department of Pediatrics, Texas Children’s Hospital, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
(20:00)
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
Gorski mangles the case of Hannah Bradley, who had a grade 3 anaplastic astrocytoma brain tumor

GorskGeek makes excuses like “spontaneous remission”, but then provides no citation, reference, or link to a case of such a tumor having spontaneously exhibited remission [15]
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
(20:40)
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
Gorski states that antineoplastons are chemotherapy
——————————————————————
No, Gorski, antineoplaston are:

“…an unapproved drug, not ordinary “chemotherapy [16] ๐Ÿ˜ฃ
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
(21:53)
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
Gorski claims in regard to Burzynski’s personalized gene-targeted therapy:

” . . . gives to the patient without regard for synergistic toxicity

“Boom, there you go”
——————————————————————
Gorski’s #FAIL rate continues, as Burzynski has stated that phase 2 and 3 publications are reviewed as part of this process [17]

Gorski, “BOOM, THERE YOU GO” ใƒƒ
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
Gorski, you should hire out to the Democratic Party as their mascot, because you must be the biggest pompous ASS I’ve ever seen ๐Ÿ˜œ

Gorski, my advice: don’t quit your day job, HACK ๐Ÿ˜ท
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
The #TAM2013 audience then has to suffer through 22:36 of the blatherskite of Robert J. (don’t call me Bobby) “Bob” Blaskiewicz Blatherskitewicz [2]

He blathers about the “dozen,” “17,” “16 dead,” “pancreatic cancer,” “Joseph, who was alive but died well within the life expectancy given his diagnosis,” “Joann, who was alive but died within a year of starting therapy,” “Irene S., who was dead within month,” “Maxine, who was already dead,” the “103 in 2011,” “63 in mid-June,” “17 on original 1999 site,” “about 3 added a year,” the “about 50 stories,” “1/10th of patient names gathered,” “Amelia S. – 7, tumor breaking up,” “Chase,” “Cody – 1994, 20 years ago, 2 visits, 6 weeks treatment breaking up,” “David,” “Janet, 3 – 5 yrs., oncologist, now dead, ovarian cancer,” “Pete took video down,” “8,000 patients,” “probable ischemic necrosis,” “13 yr. old, getting worse getting better, vomited – Marlene, nurse,” “Rory died 2005,” “Supatra, swelling, last wed., brain tumor,” “Side-effect, 2%, sodium load,” “Andrea, U.S. News and World Report, 30% chance recovery, glioblastoma, ANP in luggage, died on plane,” “Cathy wanted to be on ANP, Greg Burzynski, found out only brain tumor,” “Denise D. breast cancer,” and finally:
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
(18:45)
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
” … and light as many fires under his butt as we can
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
Mentions Rick Jaffe’s book Galileo’s Lawyer

IT’S ALL ABOUT THE PATIENTS [4]
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
All you need to know about Blaskiewicz is:

“White man speak with forked tongue” [18]
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
The 3rd video is a panel discussion, which includes “man-crush” tag-team [3]

Robert Blaskiewicz and David Gorski
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
(8:00)
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
Bob says:

“Yeah, I’m not that type of doctor
——————————————————————
Bob, the correct answer for you, is:

“I’m NOT a doctor” QUACK
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
(13:05)
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
Gorski gabs that he’s a:

“Game of Thrones Geek”
——————————————————————
I just knew I was right, GorskGeek [19]
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
(14:00)
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
The only female panelist mentions “bureaucrats”, “wimps”, and “people without balls”
——————————————————————
2 out of 3 ain’t bad

She describes the Bob and David show to a T
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
(15:00)
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
The claim is made that a Burzynski physician appeared on the Burzynski Facebook page announcing results
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
(16:00)
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
Gorski #whines that the Texas Medical Board wasn’t successful in shutting Burzynski down because of “politics”
——————————————————————
LAUGHABLE
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
(20:55)
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
Gorski gives his usual excuse:

“He’s not an oncologist”
——————————————————————
GorskiGeek, that claim is as dead as apparently, quite a number of your brain cells [15]
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
(34:40)
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
Audience members are given the opportunity to speak, and this is the garbage served up:
——————————————————————
“Hi, this is Susan

Ah, don’t forget to mention that Wikipedia has been a major battlefield

We’ve had 23,000 views to the clinic’s page this last month, also rebutr . . .”
——————————————————————
“Control the flow of information”
——————————————————————
Gorski pipes up:

“What she said”
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
(35:20)
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
Blatherskitewicz chimes in:

“When it comes to Wikipedia can I just mention that is, that is, that that is so effective that Wikipedia was singled out in the most recent Burzynski movie
——————————————————————
Gorski chirps:

“Yes”
——————————————————————
Bob yacks:

“as being controlled by evil skeptics
——————————————————————
Gorski ejaculates:

“No, seriously”
——————————————————————
Bob bleats:

“No”

(applause)
——————————————————————
“You have to unleash the evil hoards of skeptics

“Wahahaha” ๐Ÿ‘ฟ
——————————————————————
Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski on Wikipedia:

“Simply don’t pay attention to it, because it, it’s not true”

“You won’t be able to, do any, clinical research which we do, without convincing evidence, especially when you have the most powerful agency in the government which is against you

“So they would love to find something which is wrong with what we are doing”

“Ah, so the fact that they’ve, um, agreed that what we have has value, and they allow us to do phase 3 clinical trials it means that we are right”

“Because, uh, uh, nobody who didn’t have any, concrete evidence that it works, would be able to go as far”

“So whatever Wikipedia says, well, I don’t care for them

(laughing) [5]
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
Enlightening ?

Inspiring ?

Amazing ?

Hypocrites

Apparatchiks [20]
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1]David Gorski – Why We Fight (Part I): Stanislaw Burzynski Versus Science-Based Medicine – TAM 2013 11/8/2013 (22:44)
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”

======================================
[2]Robert Blaskiewicz – Why We Fight (Part II): It’s All About The Patients – TAM 2013 11/8/2013 (22:36)
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”

======================================
[3] – Medical Cranks And Quacks
TAM 2013 JREF
11/8/2013 (42:42)
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”

======================================
[4]“Galileo’s Lawyer” Richard A. Jaffe, Esq.
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
http://www.richardjaffe.com
======================================
[5] – 11/9/2013 – Pete Cohen chats with Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski:
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/pete-cohen-chats-with-dr-stanislaw-burzynski/
======================================
[6] – 6/2012 – Journal of Cancer Therapy, 2012, 3, 192-200 doi:10.4236/jct.2012.33028 Published Online June 2012, Pg. 192
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/9219.pdf
======================================
[7]Burzynski: Oh, RATS!!!:
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/26/the-lancet-oncology-peer-review-team-d-12-01519-fail-2/
======================================
[8] – Critiquing: How Stanislaw Burzynski became Burzynski the Brave Maverick Doctor, part 1:
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/critiquing-how-stanislaw-burzynski-became-burzynski-the-brave-maverick-doctor-part-1/
======================================
[9] – 9/19/2013 – Critiquing: National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) CancerNet โ€œfact sheetโ€:
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/critiquing-national-cancer-institute-nci-at-the-national-institutes-of-health-nih-cancernet/
======================================
[10] – 9/25/2013 – Critiquing: National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc. โ€“ NCAHF News: JURY NULLIFICATION THWARTS BURZYNSKI CONVICTION:
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/critiquing-national-council-against-health-fraud-inc-ncahf-news-jury-nullification-thwarts-burzynski-conviction/
======================================
[11] – 7/9/2013 – Burzynski: The Original 72 Phase II Clinical Trials:
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/burzynski-the-original-72-phase-ii-clinical-trials/
======================================
[12] – 4/26/2013 – Burzynski: FDA requirements that cancer patients utilize more traditional cancer treatment options in order to be eligible to participate in the Companyโ€™s Antineoplaston CLINICAL TRIALS:
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/burzynski-fda-requirements-that-cancer-patients-utilize-more-traditional-cancer-treatment-options-in-order-to-be-eligible-to-participate-in-the-companys-antineoplaston-clinical-trials/
======================================
[13] – Tori Moreno
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
http://www.cancerinform.org/aburzinterview2.html
======================================
[14] – 9/1999 – Pediatrics. 1999 Sep;104(3 Pt 1):435-9
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10469766/
======================================
[15] – 11/2/2013 – Critiquing: Dr. Stanislaw Burzynskiโ€™s cancer โ€œsuccessโ€ stories:
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/02/critiquing-dr-stanislaw-burzynskis-cancer-success-stories/
——————————————————————
10/25/2013 – Hannah Bradley โ€“ I Feel Empowered, In Control Of My Body: Four Women On Fighting Cancer With Alternative Therapies http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10383724/I-feel-empowered-in-control-of-my-body-four-women-on-fighting-cancer-with-alternative-therapies.html
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/25/hannah-bradley-i-feel-empowered-in-control-of-my-body-four-women-on-fighting-cancer-with-alternative-therapies-httpwww-telegraph-co-ukhealth10383724i-feel-empowered-in-control-of-my-body-fo/
======================================
[16] – NOT ORDINARY CHEMOTHERAPY
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/27/27.F3d.153.93-2071.html
======================================
[17] – 9/4/2013 – University of Michigan, where is alum Dr. David H. โ€œOracโ€ Gorskiโ€™s Grapefruits ?:
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/04/university-of-michigan-where-is-alum-dr-david-h-orac-gorskis-grapefruits/
======================================
[18] – 10/13/2013 – Why โ€œThe Skepticsโ„ขโ€ Perfessor Robert J. (donโ€™t call me โ€œBobbyโ€) โ€œBobโ€ Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) of University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire, โ€œFame,โ€ is a Coward and a Liar:
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/why-the-skeptics-perfessor-robert-j-dont-call-me-bobby-bob-blaskiewicz-rjblaskiewicz-of-university-of-wisconsin-eau-claire-fame-is-a-coward-and-a-liar/
======================================
[19] – 10/27/2013 – โ€œThe Skepticsโ„ขโ€ Burzynski Bias, Censorship, Lies, and Alibiโ€™s: September 28, 2013 โ€œThe Skepticsโ„ขโ€ Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz โ€“ 2:19:51
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/27/the-skeptics-lie-lied-lies-liars-lying-burzynski-bias-censorship-lies-and-alibis-september-28-2013-the-skeptics-burzynski-discussion-by-bob-blaskiewic/
======================================
[20] – 11/9/2013 – Wikipedia Articles:
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/burzynski-timeline/
======================================

Pete Cohen chats with Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski – Interview #2

======================================
Dr. B interview #2
2/7/2013 (10:31)
======================================
Why do you continue to do this ?
Why haven’t you just, given up ?

Because I am right
Why should I stop when I have 100’s of people who are cured

Mhmm

from incurable brain tumors
Ok
We have over 100 people, who are surviving over 5 years, just in the supervised clinical trials with brain tumors
So obviously this works (laughing)
It works in great way
So why should I stop because, some evil people like me to stop ?
It doesn’t make any sense
Evil will lose
So we are right, and we’re going to win
Not, uh, no matter how soon this will be established, but we are going to win

Well, for what it’s worth, and this is something, this is why I wanted to put myself, uh, in front of the camera with you
Obviously I spent 8 months, um, and I’ll try and not get too emotional about it, because that’s unprofessional (laughs)

Yes

but I spent, I spent a long time, looking into this, speaking to people,

Yes

You have very kindly given me access to everything here

Sure

Speak to anyone
Speak to patients
To see medical records, and I have, uh, been amazed by what I, what I’ve seen
I know the statistics are now showing, in the world, that one in two men, will have cancer
One in 3 women, will have cancer

Yes

It’s a, it’s a massive problem

That’s right

And I can see that you’ve genuinely found, uh, a cure for cancer

(?)

You know, it might not work for everyone, but if you’re given the su

Yeah

given the support

Yes

If you’re given, uh, the, uh, I don’t know, just the support basically, and the funds maybe, you could really, do some work, that could change, the whole (nature ?)

Absolutely, and then we can get better, and better
Of course, what you have now is not yet the finished products
We understand that
That’s something we can substantially improve
The response rate can be improved
So, certainly, all of this can be done, but, obviously, we need the resources
We need time to do it, and most of my time is spent with such silly thing like, uh, uh, protecting ourselves against attacks from, the people who are hired to destroy us
Ok
Obviously, there are some companies who are working on the payroll of pharmaceutical business, who are trying to smear us
To spread bad publicity about us
To generate lies about us
These people are criminals, and they are still flourishing
The end for them will come soon, but they are still hurting the other people
because the other people will not take treatment
They will not come, and they will die
Ok
There is no cure for, uh, uh, malignant brain tumors which are inoperable, ok, and we can cure at least, good percent of these people
We presented, our results, at many, many, 1st class
scientific congresses, like nuero-oncology congresses, cancer congresses, and it’s important for U.K.
I showed you yesterday, eh, presentation on brainstem glioma in children

Yeah, I have it here

and at the same, uh, Congress, in Edinburgh, we presented also another, eh, eh, paper, on the treatment of glioblastoma multiforme, and the survival on, about 88 patients, in glioblastoma multiforme
So obviously, I make, I make this available to everybody , they would like to listen, come to my presentation
They, they, they know about it, but they don’t want to know about it

Why not ?

(laughs) Because they are working
They are slaves of the big pharmaceutical cartels, ok, and on the payroll of big companies
They hate to see somebody else outside, the slavery, who can do it
I’m free man
I can, ah, do the research because, I am spending my own money for it
I don’t need to beg pharmaceutical companies or government to give me the money
I can do it on my own
They hate it
These people
They hate it because they have slave mentality

Mmm

They arch their back for scraps of money from the table, of some powerful companies, from the government, and they, how can you deal with s, slaves
They don’t want to see something new because this would disrupt, slavery system
Ok
So, current medical education s, system is manufacturing robots
They don’t think on their own, they use only what, the government, or the lawyers of the government, or what the administrators will tell them to do, ok, and if they don’t then they get punished, ok (laughs), and that’s a great system for a ph, pharmaceutical companies, because obviously they can make a lot of money, but it’s not a great system for people who have cancer because they don’t have good results

So you’ve presented at these conferences, and people don’t come up to you afterwards and say:

Mhmm

“I want to come and see what you’re doing
I’ve got to see this for myself”

Ah, well, uh, at each of these Congresses I meet a few doctors who are top specialists in their area who will come to me and say: “Ok, this looks very interesting
We’d like to know more about it
Please send me some, eh, results and a few cases that I can review,”
and that’s what you do

Yeah

You send them these cases, and that’s the end of it
I don’t hear from them anymore because they’re afraid to move any

Mmm

further, ok, because they know if they move further, they get punished
They don’t receive grants
They’d be scrutinized by their peers
They’re afraid
Ok (laughs)

Yeah

They work for us

Yeah

they work for us undercover
We have over 100 telephone callers who used to work with us, but they don’t want anybody to know about it because they’d be immediately attacked by the other guys

And the pharmaceutical world as well

Ah, well, the other guys are obviously working for cartels
Uh, they’re on the payroll, a, oh, of big business, which is cancer business, and they don’t want to lose it
Uh, in average, uh, city you might have say about 20 oncologists
One of them may work for us, but he does not no, want to tell anybody that he’s doing this because he would be destroyed by the other guys
These 20 guys will jump on him and he will, won’t have practice anymore
Ok

Yeah

So that’s, uh, the travesty, but, uh, uh, I believe that this is coming to the end
Ultimately, su, more and more doctors will learn what we do

Yeah

and more and more patients will benefit, and the breakthrough will come, but before the breakthrough will come, you have the toughest time

Mmm

because, the opposition is mounting the attacks
Whenever we came up with an announcement that was in the 20th century, we have such and such success, you are furiously attacked by the other guys, who are on payroll, uh, of cartels
Ok (laughs), for no apparent reason
You should be congratulated but we are attacked, because they see we are going to win, and they hate to see this because this means they won’t see money anymore for them, ok, or at least they think they won’t, they won’t have their payroll anymore
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
Dr. Burzynski on publishing (6:18)
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
So why does, why does, ev, everyone hide behind this thing of saying about publishing, because that’s the thing you hear all the time

Well, we cannot publish until the time is right (laughs)

Yeah

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

Mmm

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
Eh, many of my publications were rejected by known publi, by known journals like

Why ?

like Lancet, like JAMA,
like New England Journal of Medicine
Why ?
Because they say: “Sorry, but you didn’t receive enough priority to be published, and if you look in these journals and 1/2 of the, these journals, they are advertising for pharmaceutical companies
Obviously if this would come from a pharmaceutical company, this would be published on the 1st page

Mhmm

Ok
Because this, you don’t have objectivity with these guys
They are on the payrolls of the big cartels, ok, and again and if you try again to send, oh, oh, my manuscript to good journals, if they reject it, we go on Internet and you describe what are these guys
So then everybody will know, because I have very good evidence
that we tried many times to publish in 1st class journals, and we are always rejected

It’s just, persistent

And not, and not because of lack of scientific knowledge
No, because of lack of priority
And who has priority ?
The guys who are paying money for advertising
Ok
So that’s, unfortunately what I think will end sometime
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
And we are now preparing publication, on some of these results
We have already published the results on the technique of very difficult variety of breast cancer, which is triple-negative breast cancer
Now we are preparing another article on the technique of
gynecological cancer, which is best series of over 100 patients treated with incurable ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, (?)
So this, has now been prepared for press
Eh, of course, I would like to, give everybody intravenous antineoplastonssee, if they qualified, but, this is limited by the government, because the government limits us to only the patients who are
have
brain tumors, but the other patients, they can be treated through this combination of medication which work on the genes
Antineoplastonswork on over 100 different genes
That’s why they give us, very good advantage
There are medications that also work on a number of different genes, and we can combine them together, and use them in the right way
So
that’s what we’ll continue to perfect, and that’s, uh, most of our patients
been treated with just combination of targeted medications
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
The Future (9:00)
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
Why do you continue to do this ?
Because you know the truth, and you want to get the truth out there ?

Absolutely, because we understand we on the right track
Somebody has to do it
I was lucky enough to, find out about it
We have evidence that we are right, and, uh, I don’t think, why should I stop if, people that don’t have sufficient knowledge, who are working, on behalf of some big business, would like to stop us
We are right, and we would like to continue to help people, and, uh, that is what is going to happen
Of course, probably the best reason to make a discovery, and let it stay as it is and ask the other people to publish after I die

Yeah

That’s what happened with the discovery of Nicolaus Copernicus, who was my countryman
Eh, his book was published, sss, when he died, and, uh, for good reason, because of such fears for execution of the people who followed him
like

Hmmm

Galileo, Giordano Bruno, that it took the church, uh, only until recently to agree that, uh, they made the error, in the case
Ok
So if you come up with some breakthrough, you have a choice
Keep it quite until the other guys who understand what you do
or try to use it
In my case, I decided to use it, because I would like to, help people, and now that we can save people, so why should I keep quiet, ok, but certainly if, my work won’t get published because it keeps getting rejected by some of the journals, then we wait until I die, and then we let the other guys publish it
So, ok
======================================

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

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

======================================
Juan F. Martinez-Canca – Consultant – Neurosurgeon
(20:31)
======================================
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

vocation
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 (?)
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
Hannah’s Operation (1:35)
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
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

April
Correct
Good date
So

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
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
(3:42)
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
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 ?)

Yeah

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

Ok
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 ?

Yeah

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
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
Dr. Martinez on Dr. Burzynski (6:50)
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
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

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
Ok
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

Yeah

Ok
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

Mmm

Hannah’s case
When are you going to Texas ?

We went in December

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%

Yeah

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

Yeah

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
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
Hannah’s MRI scans (13:34)
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
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
So

This is after the operation

After the operation

Operation

This is the 17th through the 4th

Yep
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 ?

Yep

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
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
The Future for the Treatment of Cancer (16:18)
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
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 ?

Definitely
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
Invariably
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
Ok
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
Ok
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
======================================
http://www.neurokonsilia.com/About-Us.html
======================================

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

Pete Cohen chats with Sonali Patil, Ph.D., Research Scientist at The Burzynski Clinic

======================================
1/2012Sonali Patil, Ph.D., Research Scientist at The Burzynski Clinic
(18:22) 9/18/2012
======================================
So you, you, you’re a scientist here ?

I’m a scientist here

And, and you work, just with antineoplastons ?

Not necessarily
This is our cell biology lab, and in molecular biology we do basic research on the antineoplastons
Sometimes we also study it in combination with the other, uh, medicines that Dr. Burzynski is interested in
So, but mostly antineoplaston
This is looking at mechanism for action
Trying to understand how it treats the cancer cells, is able to kill the cancer cells without damaging the other cells of the body
So mostly antineoplaston is the target here

And what do you think about
antineoplastons ?

We have found, uh, very interesting, uh, molecular pathways targets that antineoplaston is targeting, working very effectively to kill the cells, um, probably better than many other drugs, because, um, it has multiple targets, and so attacks the cells from many different angles, and is able to kill the cancer cells, more effectively

So, can I ask you, how did you come to work in, th, the Burzynski
the institution ?

Through an advertisement, it was
My position was advertised
I started 8 years ago, and

So ok
So it was advertised

Mhmm

So when you applied for the job, were you aware of the controversy of, (comments to self: learn to talk)
So when, when did you find out ?

Uh, eh, as soon as I joined (laughing)

Oh yeah ?

Few months later
I thought, it’s easy to find
It’s not hard

Of course

It’s not even, uh

Wha, what about any of you other colleagues, that prior to coming here ?
I mean, did they say anything to you, like, you know ?

Well they brought something up
(?) in, uh, uh, being there for him during this trial, my boss, my previous boss was here before me
Uh, so I have a very open picture of it, and it doesn’t bother me
He came up against it and won

Yeah

So that’s a good thing

An, and why do you think, it kinda hasn’t been, kinda lost the word, hasn’t taken off, you know ?
Has the scientific community hasn’t really embraced ?

Well anything that is non-traditional always, you know, takes its own time to get to people
Besides, the traditionalists don’t want it coming out because, uh, it affects, a lot of other things, um, finance, in, in the big Pharma

Right

that is affected by this
So, um, if it, if it were, um, a medicine already with another big company, it probably would already be out in the market by now, but, uh, it’s because it’s one man’s show
He’s fighting against, uh, traditional medicine, big, big centers like M.D. Anderson right here in Houston
So, most people want to believe, uh, what the other doctors, the oncologists, are telling them, because that’s what everybody does
So very few filter out of that and come looking for him, because they’ve lost hope there, and they’ve tried everything else, and they come because; which I wish they wouldn’t, come here as a last resort, you know

Mmm

and, by then, sometimes, uh, enough damage has been done that is sometimes even he cannot cure
It’s not magic
It’s
There’s a logic to the way the medicine works
The science behind it is not, it’s not just a magic bullet
So, and you have to target it at the right time
Catch cancer at the right time

So I have a, friend of my mother’s at home, whose spent, her whole, academic career, 20, 30 years, researching, astrocytomas

Mhmm

And, uh, you know, I did my research, and, I was no doubt that we were coming here
No question
My, my research was more based on people

Excuse me

On people
Talking to people who had been treated, and seeing the results, and then looking at the research afterwards, and she was just saying that “I’ve spent all my years, research, and research, and research, I can’t find anything, that validates, this, this treatment
Now I’m not asking you to comment on what she said, but,

No, validation, validation basically means, uh, proof in scientific community
If you’re not accepted into the scientific community, you’re not going to be able to present that truth, and we go and present at conferences all the time, eh, when it comes to publishing papers, uh, we haven’t been very successful
Dr. Burzynski has published, uh, a lot of data of his patients
So it’s out there

Yeah

If you, if you want to believe it, and you’re looking for it, you’ll find it

Yeah

It’s just, um, it’s not in the mainstream places, because it gets rejected out of there
Um, it’ll probably take some time to get into those spots where everybody else is publishing, and everybody else is talking about it, but it doesn’t mean that it’s not true

So obviously you’re here on a daily basis
So when was the 1st

Last 8years

So the last 8 years
When was the 1st time you actually saw, was it in the dish where you actually saw it ?

Well we see it, we’ve seen it for years before I came here

Yeah, but when was the 1st time you saw it, when you came here yourself and you saw ?

Well we see it every day
Um, we have cancer cells in the lab, that we treat, with the medicine
We see them dying
We see them undergoing a necrosis, which is the cancer deaths, pathway, that most people study and talk about

So

So, it’s happening, it’s happening in front of our eyes everyday
So, we have proof for it
you know (?)
We just have to get it out there, and there’s a, there’s a system to all that

Um

and were trying to, get it through the system, and get it out there

So what, when you 1st realized there is something here, did you not just feel like just shouting from the rooftops and telling everybody?

Well I wasn’t the one who discovered
He did, in the ’80’s

Yeah

and since then he’s been shouting from the rooftop
It’s just, nobody would listen to him

Yeah, yeah

So, you know, we’re just doing the, uh, actually it’s backwards
People usually do, uh, pre-clinical research 1st, because the medicine

Mhmm

goes out and to the patients, and we, we are kind of doing it, the other way around
He already has patient data
He’s been treating people
on this
People, survivors walking around, to tell the story, and now we are being made to understand how it works in the cells
So, it’s, it’s kinda doing, the research, after the trials

Just tell me
One more question
What’s it like
How would you describe Dr. Burzynski ?

I admire his, uh, passion, for what he does
He truly believes in what he does, and to me that’s, that’s a big thing
If you don’t believe in yourself, then nobody else will, and, his memory
He, he has tremendous memory, and, uh, uh, quick thinking
He’s able to piece together stuff, uh, research articles, papers, put together puzzle, come up with a theory
He does that every day, every time I meet him it’s, it’s interesting to me to see how his brain works

you say, in, in the purest sense, he’s a scientist

I think he’s a doctor 1st, but a doctor who’s very, very interested in science, and that’s an important thing, because a lot of, uh, doctors don’t care about the research, and he does
I think, I think his primary aim is to treat patients, mostly

So if there were any type of skeptic, research scientist out there, what would you say to them about what goes on here?

We do, we do, everything that happens in any other lab, anywhere else
I went to school at Houston, ah, so, I know exactly how the labs work
We do exactly what they do

Yeah

Um, we try to write up our papers, and send them to the journals, just like everybody else does
Uh, present at conferences
We try to get our data out there
Um, we’re trying to do our best, just the way everyone else is

I, I suppise trying to do your best it, it, it’s fascinating because you actually have something

Yeah

that really, really does work

Mhmm

I mean, it’s a cure, right ?

We believe it is

It’s a cure for cancer
Not for all cancers
I actually asked Dr. Burzynski

Mhmm

I filmed him the other day and said to him, why do you, specialize in brain tumors ?

Mhmm

Do you know what his answer was ?

What was it ?

He said it’s because it’s the most difficult type of cancer

Well it is if, if you think about it
I don’t think there are many doctors who claim to have survivors, eh, at least in the numbers that he has, to present

Yeah

and, um, I hear that at conferences too when we, were standing around, they will look at the slides, eh, eh, which is a tumor, and they will say: “Well that’s not a tumor,” ye, “it’s just necrosis
It’s just a patch on the skin, and you just cured nothing, and”, uh, all the, “the patient was probably cured from, the therapy that he took elsewhere, you know, the radiation he got 10 years ago”
“That’s probably what cured him,” but, you know, th, those kind of patients will be rejected from other, hospitals, don’t survive, that far enough to, to tell a story

So what is it ?
Just people living in denial ?
Is it fear ?
Is it ?

Fear or denial
I’m going to do what everybody else does
Why, why should I go out and do something different, here ?
Yeah (?)

And, and lastly, you know the, the power the pharmaceutical companies have

Well of course
I mean, but I’m nobody to, comment about that

Yeah, yeah

You know
There’s, there’s a lot going on behind the scenes that we are not even aware of, but this is just what, um, my experience is, when I talk to other doctors at meetings and conferences, and they, you’re immediately dismissed as, oh, you know: “What you’re going to say doesn’t really make any sense because you work for, Dr.

His name has been tarnished
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
There’s a lot more, to that, than just, people playing politics, this, this, a whole lot of stuff going on behind there
So, I don’t think it’s, it’s (supression ?) as much, it’s just trying to tell your story, uh, so that somebody would listen and accept it, uh, maybe using, the right channels, going, presenting it in a different way, make it more convincing
All that, would help

So if it, if it was you, in his position, would you not have just given up ?
Or would you

Oh, definitely
We all talk about it all the time, that the amount of determination that he has, most people, would back off and leave, but like I said, he believes in what he does, and that’s what keeps him going

Yeah
As far as publishing is concerned, ’cause a lot of scientist want to see

We’ve tried
We, we, don’t get past the initial screening
We repeatedly send it back to other journals and that’s the process I keep doing all the time
Comes back, I send it back to another journal
Hopefully, one day it will get it

So, let, let, let, let me get this straight, ok ?
You write articles, right ?

Papers

Papers

Mhmm

and you submit them to, medical journals

Mhmm

and then what happens ?

They come back

Why do they come back ?

Sometimes, um, if they get to reviewers, uh, it’s not enough data, or, which I understand
We can work on changing, modifying papers, but, many times they come back, without any reason
They just get rejected, at the 1st, screen itself
So they come back without any reason

And why do you feel that is, in your own humble opinion ?

Wha ? (laughing) not humble opinion
It’s, it’s hard, um, publishing is a tricky game, you know ?
You have to publish once, to get your name in there, and then, they might publish you again, but, uh, with the negative publicity that we already had, and most of the community would look at the name and say: “Oh we, we just don’t want to, want to even read it”
So, it, it doesn’t even get past the 1st screen, because they don’t turn, flip the 1st page even

Ok, so, what you’re saying is that you see things that are published in these journals

Oh yes

And, you see ?

very similar stuff
We try to, we try to do research that is on par, uh, with what everybody else is doing, as far as the techniques, the ana, the data analysis
We, we try to do everything which is the standard for, uh, the research community, but, doesn’t get past

Um, how frustrating must that be for you ?

Mmm, it is (laughing), it is

So do you feel like you’re a party, or you’re trying to get into a party, and knocking on the door, and no one’s letting you in ?

I feel like that at the conferences too because, um, sometimes they come up to your, poster presentations, and, um, they’ll ridicule you right there, while you’re standing there by your presentation

Ok, just last thing, because one of the things I heard

Mhmm

recently, which were, that, uh, there’s some evidence that Dr. Burzynski has from, from the phase 2 clinical trials, showing people who have, uh, glioblastomas who’ve been alive for 10 years

Mhmm

and there’s something there that they want to try and get published

Mhmm

What you’re saying is, that might never get published ?

Well, Dr. Burzynski’s case is different
He has published some of his patient data
I’m talking about the research, uh, the pre-clinical research, the cell culture data, the molecular data
Um, we haven’t had success getting that out, but, he has, he also faces rejection a lot, but he doe, he has managed to get ta, a few publications in

So how does it work ?
If, if you submit something they can
What’s the process ?
They can submit it back ?

That’s not, there’s a review
There’s a whole review board
Um, you can select your reviewers
It goes through couple of cycles of review before it’s, agreed that they will publish it
So,

And in case they say no to publishing it

You can

do you, can you take it somewhere else ?

Yeah, you can take it somewhere else, but, um, but it’s, the peer-reviewed journals that are the ones that you want to get into, you can publish whatever you want, ah, that doesn’t count
That’s why when, somebody who’s of, uh, any significance in science would not even look at those articles if they’re not in a peer-review journal
So, they have to get into a decent place to make a mark

Do you think that will happen ?
What do you think has to happen in order for ?

It’ll happen, in, in time
They can’t keep refusing you
We, we try again and again
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
But in time they just want to, not focus on it, and just have’m, bring in more numbers, and keep doing this, and in the meantime keep treating, some number of patients
On, on, top of everything, my personal belief is, uh, brain tumors are not, uh, a money-raising factor, because it’s a, it’s a minority cancer
If this were treating, uh, mainstream cancers as they’re called, as, uh, breast cancer, maybe they would look at it more seriously, but the numbers, with the brain tumors, which is a good thing
I mean it’s a deadly cancer
You don’t want more people to have it, but, that puts it in the category of, um, you know, not so feasible, as far as the money-making
And so, the priority; even though, it’s the most vicious, and it should be looked at more seriously, but, it’s not the one that brings the big bucks

So

So, put it aside

So why would the FDA, haven’t closed him down then ?

Because they, they, uh, believe the data that he’s sending them so far, and they don’t have a valid point to, just say no, it doesn’t work, and put it away
They see effect, and so they want, more numbers, more data

Is it, it the phase 2 trial is finished ?

Mhmm

but they’re still accepting people ?

Yeah

on more like a special ?

Special basis, and, um, sometimes compassionate grounds

(compassion exception)

Uh, exceptions

That’s normal ?

Yes
So

(Yes I guess it is a funding issue ?)

Right

(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)

(?) and that’s stalling

(even more, millions dol, millions of dollars, to go through the 3rd phase of clinical trials, and)

(?)

(he’s a single doctor
It’s a 1st case)

Yeah

(probably in American history)

It is

(that single doctor is trying, to get a his job)

Self-funded

(approval
Self-funded
Whatever you’ve seen on that plant, everything came out of his practice
So he was the one who funded, literally the, the, research and development phase, but those installation, operation, all this big plant was built ?)

Yes, ’cause, uh,

(private)

one of the things I hear a lot, I’ve heard slot in the U.K. is that: “Why is he charging people for clinical trials ?

Well, uh, how else would you run this place ?

Exactly
How will you run this place, and how else will people be on the trial, because

Right

you know, there’s no pharmaceutical company involved here, right ?

There’s nothing
Nothing
It’s all out of his pocket
Every single bit
So
And what is stalling (?) is (?) again is, is funds
Money

Yeah, I also heard that the phase 3 they wanna do radiotherapy with, with it

Mmm

Hopefully, that will not be the case, but

we’re trying to
I think, uh, he is trying to fight against that, but, the FDA is the FDA, so

And what do you think about this case, he’s now got coming up in April ?
You know, he’s got this court case

Well there’s always something

Yeah (laughing)

He, he’s won before, so

Yeah

Do you think he needs the support, do you think he feels the support from, from all of you ?

I think so, for sure

(Oh, absolutely)

Yeah

Nobody forced us to work here

(Ah-hah)

Yeah

We get paid, but, you know
I could always look for another job if I needed to (laugh)

Yeah
So would you stay here because you really believe in what’s going on here ?

(?)

(Yes, that’s one thing that’s unique about our operation, and I’m talking about this location is, uh, whoever joined the company; and we have a guys who joined the company in the 80’s, 90’s
They stay with the company
Turnover is zero)

Yeah

(Joined the company
Stays with the company
It’s a challenge)

Yeah

(It’s a (?) challenge for us)
======================================

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

Pete Cohen chats with Richard A. Jaffe, Esq.

======================================
4/2012Pete Cohen chats with Rick Jaffe
(33:59) 11/9/2012
Richard A. Jaffe, Esq.
======================================
How did you meet Dr. Burzynski?

A long time ago in 1988, um, he hired us to represent him in his Medical Board case, so, uh, started working for him then, and then there got to be more and more work, and, uh, at some point it was so much work, it was just easier for me to be down here
So I moved from New York to Texas, mostly just to, to represent him, and my wife was in the oil industry, so, it was a “no brainer” for her to move down here too

And how, were you intrigued by this whole case ?
I mean, did you work out straight away that this guy was genuine, and there was really something here ?

No (laugh)
How do you know, you know ?
At the time we represented, uh, a number of a alternative health practitioners around the country, and we heard a lot about Burzynski, but you don’t really know
I mean, um, um, there are a lot of stories out there
Every doctor seems to have a few patients, uh, that were helped
So initially, I mean, how do you know ?
His operation was larger than most of any, uh, health practitioners, alternative health practitioners in the country, and, uh, seemed a lot more sophisticated, but, uh, it’s not really until you dig in the medical records of the patients that you really see what’s going on
I mean, that’s what you really need
I mean,
It’s not really even, it’s
’cause this whole thing about anecdotal evidence, that everyone has testimony
so every doctor
You know what I mean ?
anybody
Even charlatans have testimony
people
one or two people
or 3 or 4 that’ll come, and say w
they were cured, and maybe, maybe the patients really believe that to be the case, but, um, oftentimes there’s other explanations
Prior treatment, um, the nature of the disease
Sometimes it’s such that their natural, the natural history is not straight linear, um, but after looking at some of the medical records, I mean, you know, I think
it’s just,
uh, anybody would become a believer, and indeed, I mean, government, government doctors have come down here and looked at

some of the records, and they were convinced that, that the treatment was causing remissions in some brain cancer patients

So, I mean, obviously lawyers, I imagine many lawyers all over the world would often take on a case, when they know, possibly the guy isn’t telling the truth, but they can see there’s still a story, and they, they, they, they, uh, represent that person, but for you, I suppose
that when you realized that there really was a story here, did you kind of get, emotionally caught up in this whole thing and think: “Right, th this guy’s got a cure for cancer, and I I need to bring this to, bring him to just, not bring him to justice, but, clear his name
Well, I think with Burzynski, more so than any client I’ve ever represented
He represents a unique constellation of medical services
He’s the only guy in the world doing what he’s doing with antineoplastons and now with this treatment, so, it’s really different
Uh, you know, with Burzynski, most of the patients, are in bad shape
They’re either dying, uh, they, or they have a disease for which there is no known cure, you know, like a lot of these brain tumors
So, even from the beginning, what’s different is their are many, many patients back then who were on the treatment, that uh, that felt that without this treatment they were going to die, and so that, that’s much different, than the average, any kind of lawsuit
Right ?
So th th these lawsuits, the Burzynski cases back then and now, uh, these cases matter, in a, in a deeper, and fundamental, and personal way than most anything, well I think that any lawyer does
I mean, any criminal defense lawyer, who defends an individual, is defending that person’s, uh, liberty
Alright ?
Versus incarceration
But here it, it wasn’t so much, or, it wasn’t exclusively about Burzynski, it was really about all these other patients, and they certainly believe they needed him, and, uh, uh, many of them, obviously did
So, so that, that, that’s a whole ‘nother dimension, which typically we lawyers don’t get involved in
So, I mean, it’s a responsibility but also a great privilege to be working on these kinds of cases

You’ve been representing him for how long ?

For a long time
Since 1988, continuously

And can you believe this is still going on ?

Well, you know, uh, it’s, you know, it’s, it’s just ongoing
I mean, until there’s a cure for cancer, for all cancer, either done by acknowledged

or, uh, uh, to be Burzynski’s cure or somebody else’s
I mean, this is ongoing
And I guess the problem is, you know, ultimately, there’s nobody yet
Not even Burzynski has the cure for every cancer or
even every stage, or even ev, every, ev, ev, every person that had cancer
So, because it’s such a tough battle, and because, it doesn’t work on everyone
So you have these open questions
Ah, so, so,
Yeah, I mean, I guess, I, I can’t believe he’s still messing around with these clinical trials
I mean, I think that if the drug didn’t have his name attached to it, it’d probably would have been approved by now
So, and I think, so that, that’s unfortunate, I think, that when you fight the FDA, and even if you win, you know, the F, the repercussions, you know, you know I, you know I
Hopefully the drug will be approved, sometime in the future, but, but who knows ?

So, um, why do you think, why was it, I mean, obviously I came over here as you know, for this case, which is now not going ahead at the moment
Why, why, why is that ?
Wha, what has the judge, said ?

Well, of course, you have to (under)stand, this case involves a different type of treatment
It doesn’t involve antineoplastons,the drug Dr. Burzynski invented, and your friend is receiving, and it involves a new approach to cancer, which is sort of like personalized medicine, where they take a bunch of FDA approved drugs, that have shown some promise, on a particular cancer, but are not, uh, approved for that indication, and based on these early clinical trials showing promising results for genetic testing they give these combinations of FDA approved drugs, off-label to patients, and that’s really what the, this case is about, and, uh, you know I think, I don’t think they, they never had a case
I mean, they never had a case
The, the main allegation, in each, of the 2 patients involved, is that they used this treatment, which wasn’t sufficiently tested, and was non-therapeutic, and whatnot, and we had a, what I would call a dry run
We presented the evidence to the Board, or 2 members of the Board, in both of these cases
In each, in each case, the Board members felt that the treatment, was within the standard of care, given the advanced condition of the patient, or one patient, and given how rare the other patient’s tumor was
So, we had our dry run in each case, and the Board found in our favor on the main charge
They had some technical issues with medical records or whatnot, and, uh, the Board basically said, they took the position, ok, agree to some kind of sanction on these little charges, or, or we’re going to go after you on everything
So, we refused the honor, and, uh, the Board then charged him with the same thing that they already cleared him with, or on, and, and so we had to do, you know, basically the same case again, and, uh, the irony in, is in these 2 cases Burzynski wasn’t even in the country
He was, he was, he was away for, uh, in both, for both cases, when the patientscame
So, uh, the question is how do you hold someone responsible
Even if you own the clinic, for treatment administered and prescribed, by other doctors, and that concept of vicarious liability does not, uh, exist in jurisprudence, and in the law governing professional re, responsibility, anywhere in this country
So, the Board’strying to start that
You know, I think they just got in over their heads, they
Most people just knuckle under
You know, most people don’t, are afraid to go to court, so they’ll sign anything just to, you know, not to go forward, but, you know, Burzynski faced serious stuff
I mean, he set, faced, 5, 10, 15 years in jail
So he wasn’t going to be intimidated, by the Medical Board, and he refused to give in
So when I told the Board at the time, and I told them all along, they have no case, and o on the merits they have no case
We already won, and they have no case now, and, and slowly I think, the Board is starting to understand that

And what sort of a person would you say Dr. Burzynski is ?

Well I think he’s a complicated person
I mean, I think, uh, uh, you know, he, I think like a lot of mavericks; I represent a lot of mavericks around the, uh, uh, country
One of the main characteristics of these guys, is that they have absolute and total certainty, in what they believe in, in what they do, um, and no doubt
Uh, they all think they’re right
They all think that history is going to vindicate them
Now, I’ve represented some people where I personally doubt (laugh) that, uh, uh, that belief, but not in Dr. Burzynski’s case
I mean, I think he’s all, he’s definitely helping people
He’s definitely, uh, uh, uh, making, extending people’s lives, and curing some people that otherwise would have died, and so I think he, and so I think he happens to be right
So, uh, you know, so, but, but he’s a human
He’s got a big ego
He thinks he’s, uh, he thinks he has made an important, contribute to medicine, and he’s not shy about sharing that sentiment
So, uh, I think, and I think that he’s, uh, not American
So he comes with a completely different mentality towards, say, the government
Alright, he grew up in communist Poland, where everyone, where everyone, has to work around, the government, and I think that’s much harder here, and, you know, I think he has expectations that, that he would have a lot more freedom, than it turned out he had, too, and he thought he would not have to deal with the kind of government, uh, rigamarole that you have to deal with in communist, Poland

And, and how do you think it might all pan out for him ?
I mean, I know you don’t have a crystal ball, but if you could look, 5 or 10 years down into the future, and, do you think that he will have got somewhere, to be accepted in the medical (?) of oncology ?

Well, I certainly hope so
I mean, 5, 10 years from now
I mean, I think, at a minimum, what’s going to happen, there will be many, many patients who will be alive, and continue to be alive because of him
Some, will have their lives extended
Some will be cured
Some wi, won’t be cured, and will die
So, I think that’s for sure, going to happen
You know, is there going to be an end to, uh, all this ?
We had a period of maybe 10 years where there was very little action with the Board, but, uh, you know, it’s hard, frankly, I mean, just in, and again my perspective, like I’m in a, like a, a sergeant in the trenches, in trench (laugh) warfare
So, it’s hard for me to see the big picture
I mean, I just keep fighting these battles, and there’s one, after another, after another
So this is really just the latest, and on there’s civil lawsuits, and then there are people on the Internet, and then, you know, there could be more Medical Board investigations
So, lo, look there are a lot of people who don’t like what he’s doing
They think what he’s doing is either unethical or wrong, or shouldn’t be giving drugs, these drugs to people, except under clinical trial conditions, and, you know, he has detractors, and he has a lot of supporters
I mean, uh, mostly amongst the patients he’s cured
So, I don’t know that, that, that is gonna resolve itself
I mean, ultimately, he’s one of the few people in the country, that, or maybe the only person in the country that does what he does, and, it’s not the way medicine is practiced, in this country, typically
Right, and, you know, I think what he does, is, is more, is more patient oriented, in a sense that, once you’ve been told you’re terminal, why should you just get the palliative care that a medical oncologist thinks, you know, they should be given
even though when, no one ever gets cured of chemotherapy, once it’s palliative, once you have stage 4, solid tumor

Mmm

I mean, they give chemotherapy for what they call palliative reasons, which means, not curative
So, this concept of giving, just conventional chemotherapy to make you feel better, extend your life 9 weeks, I mean, y, not everyone wants to do that
Some people want a shot for a real cure, and, you know, based on the evidence with antineoplastons
, I mean, he seems to be giving people that shot, and curing some of the people
So, you, you know, I don’t see how, this thing gets resolved
Up until the time that the
treatment, the
antineoplastons is approved by the FDA and, you know,
it’s, it’s hard to see a clear path, for that, for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is financial
I mean, it takes dozens of 10’s of millions of dollars

Mmm

or 10, 100’s of millions
So, I mean, someone has to finance the clinical trials
The drug companies aren’t interested right now
They’d just as soon, buy a drug that’s been fully tested
So, I mean, the drug company response has not been overwhelming, because, even though this phase 2 phase, have resolved, and, and, uh, they have excellent results, the drug companies want to wait and see
So, uh, it’s, it’s big money
I don’t think there’s any way in the world Dr. Burzynski, himself, can fund phase 3
I mean, he, he funded everything else now, but phase 3 are, is a much bigger stage involving dozens and 100’s of patients, and that’s just within the financial means of any individual

it seems like it’s unlikely that its going to happen right
I mean, even from the point of view of, what, with phase 3 trials, they’ll be with children

with brainstem gliomas, right
and the FDA’s saying they’ve got to have radiation

Yeah I, um,
I unfortunately, I haven’t been involved in that process
I just see the result, and I, I, I just don’t see how any parent agrees to that, you know

I don’t see how any parent agrees to it
I don’t see how clinical investigator, agrees to do it
Um, I don’t know
I got so, I got some questions of the FDA as to, why they forced him into this particular protocol
I mean, I don’t know
I don’t have any facts or evidence, but I, I, just doesn’t make any sense to me

what’s you’re about that ?

I don’t know
I mean, I, it just doesn’t seem to me, that it’s a, that it’s a fair clinical trial that

Mmm

either an investigator would find ethical, or a patient, or a family, would agree to have their patient treat, their, their kid treated under
I mean, it just doesn’t make any sense to me
I mean, it’s worse than
I mean, both phases, both phases, both arms of the study, you get radiation
It’s radiation alone versus radiation with his stuff
So, I mean, it just doesn’t make any sense to me, given, given the clinical, the phase 2 clinical trial results

So just a, so just a few things, like, you know I’m going to talk about big Pharma, and then talk about the FDA

Right

They talk about the many people as if they’re one person, but, you know, they’re obviously a collective group of individuals who work for an organization, right ?

Well, I mean, I think, the concern is, that the FDA now, by statute is, in no small part funded, by the pharmaceutical industry
It’s like “Pay as you go”
So the, the pharmaceutical ind, industry now, pays for, the processing of the clinical trials by the FDA
So, and then you have the whole concept of the revolving door
You have a lot of government officials going into the drink, uh, drug companies
So I think that’s another problem
So, I mean, you know, I think conspiracy is too strong of a word, m, but, you know, I will say, I don’t think the system’s set up, for an individual like Burzynski, to get a drug approved
I, I, I just don’t see
There’s no support for that
I mean, the days
I mean, it’s like, Einstein, you know ?
He sat in a patent office, and, and doodled, and had his little theory
He could never get his, stuff published today, you know ?
Where did he go to school
?
Where was he teaching, you know ?
So Burzynski has a lot of the same problems
They say he doesn’t publish, but, they won’t let him publish
So, uh, or they won’t let him publish , in, in the mainstream journals
So, I, I, I think though, I think the, I think the system, has a strong bias, against a guy with a discovery
So, that’s not quite saying, there’s a conspiracy, but it’s, it’s sort of along the same lines, and, you know, the conspiracy implies some kind of, um, intentionality on the part of one or two, or some small group or coterie of people, and I don’t know, I don’t think that’s really the case
I think what happens is, the institutions are such that, they allow certain things, and disallow certain things
Alright ?
I think that’s just
there’s no
I don’t think there’s any 2, 3, 4, or some, coterie of Rocka, they’re like a Rockefeller conspiracy
People are saying that there are 12 industrials
That they control the world
I mean, I don’t see that happening, but, the whole system is such that, you know, it’s, it’s
I guess what, uh
The, there’s a book by, uh, a, a, Thomas Kuhn, the Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and he talks about, normal science, and how science progresses, in terms of paradigm shifts
So, normal scientific medicine, works, uh, by big institutions doing, studies about combinations of drugs, after drug companies, invent mostly, modifications of existing drugs, and, less commonly, completely new drugs, and, uh, less commonly, different classes of drugs
So, you have a whole, you have a whole pipeline from a drug company, a whole, uh, uh, mechanism of testing, by the universities, funded by the pharmaceutical company, uh, all the pharmaceutical companies, and that, that just doesn’t lend itself, to one guy, sitting someplace in Houston, or wherever, and having a drug, put through that process
That just doesn’t happen
Burzynski is, so far as I can tell, the only person, to ever completed, a phase 2 trials on a drug he invented
I don’t think that’s ever happened, before, and I don’t think it’ll ever happen again

Ah, was it ’98, was it the chairman, uh

Kessler ?

Kessler
I saw, an interview he gave, press, a press conference where he was explaining about, being able to fast-track
The FDA trying to make it possible to fast-track, you know, drugs that have shown, you know, positive, rather than going through all of this sort of clinical trial, and there’s a guy in the, in the press conference who started asking questions about Burzynski

Right

and you could just see quite clearly he was very uncomfortable

Right

asking questions about, uh, about Dr. Burzynski
How do you think someone like him,
would view, someone like Dr. Burzynski ?

Not favorably
I think that, uh,

Do you think they must know ?
Do you think they must, even he, let’s just say, if he were on his own, he, he knows there’s something there
That he’s obviously got something

I,
I don’t know, uh
I think, that, the guys in conventional medicine, because Burzynski came from orthodox medicine
He was at Baylor
He was a researcher at Baylor
So, I think, they’re not going to Burzynski, is that, he didn’t go about it, the way, other physicians would have done it, other scientists would have done it
So normally what would happen, is, uh, uh, I mean, I think the critical, point in his story is that, when he was at Baylor, and his, uh, professor was supporting him, this Unger, left, you know, they had space for him
They wanted him to go in the Oncology, uh, Department, but, they wanted the patent, to his drug, and he wouldn’t do it
So, that would have been the more conventional approach
You give up the patent rights, you become part of the team, then some big institution, uh, uh, shepherds the drug through, and then they find some drug company support, who will split the patent with the university
So, had he done that, uh, you know, I think the drug woulda been approved by now, but, you know, it was his drug
He came to America with it, and he wasn’t going to give it all away
So, I mean, I just think that’s, you know, I mean and that’s, you know, I think he wasn’t expecting that kind of thing in America
Maybe in communist Poland, but not in America
So I think that really, you know, set him down the path of being a, a, an alternative health practitioner

And wha, wha, what was it like for you when, uh, winning, the case, in was it, 199, 3, 1998 ?

’97

1997

Well, you know, there wasn’t just one case
I mean, I mean, it was everyone
I mean, I analogize it to, like whack-a-mole, or whack-a-rat, you know
You have, like a rat come out of, of a hole, and you bang him, and one comes out of this hole, and all of a sudden you’ve got 2, and then 3, and, so, you know, during the early ’90’s, I mean, I mean, there were 3 grand juries, uh, we had the Medical Board action, which went to hearing in ’93
The Texas Department of Health sued him in ’92
Half a dozen insurance companies had sued, uh, uh, sued him for, for some, for Racketeering
Uh, Texas Air Quality Department went after him
I’m trying to think who else
So, all of this happened, over the course of 3, or 4, or 5 years, and it was just, continuous, and so, one agency would, would get active, and then, they get beaten down
Then somebody else would come, uh, come up, and surface, and indeed, I mean, you know, it, you know, some of them flat out said they were waiting to see what happened, with this oth, wha, what happened with this other agency, and they weren’t gonna do anything, and then when they got tired, they decided, that this new agency had to do something
So, I mean, that was flat out, what happened
So, yeah, I mean, it culminated in the criminal case, I suppose, but even there it was up and down
I mean, the judge ordered, uh, ordered, prohibited him from giving the treatment to anybody else, because the Texas Medical Board case, ultimately went against us, and then we had to go Congress, and Congress forced the FDA to put all his patients on clinical trials which made the Medical B, Board case moot, and then we won the criminal case
So, after we won the criminal case in, uh, ’97, things got quiet for a little bit
So that, that, that was good
I mean, it was quiet
I mean, relatively quiet, and then, uh, lately in the last couple years it’s been very active again

So the worst case scenario would have been
What would have been the worst case scenario ?

For when ?

And this, this
What could have happened this week if the case had gone ahead ?

Well, the worst case scenario would be, there would be a finding, that, that it’s a depart, it’s a departure from the standard of care to use, uh, off-label drugs, that haven’t been approved by the
FDA for an indicated use, and you can’t use the combination of the drugs until someone gives the stamp of approval saying that their safe and effective, which means, you know, you couldn’t, it couldn’t, you couldn’t give the treatment anymore to patients
So you have 100’s of patients that are on this multi-agent gene-targeted therapy, and ultimately that form of treatment is only available at the Burzynski Clinic
I mean, I don’t think that even clinical trials
Burzynski, depending on how you look at it, he’s a few years ahead of, of, uh, well, even the clinical trials
I mean, they’re some clinical trials now on different kinds of cancer where they’re doing 1, 2, or 3 agents
He’ll use 4 or 5, albeit, lesser dosages
So he’s treated 1,000’s of patients like that, but there’s no place else in the world where people can get, the treatment
So it’s kinda the same thing as back in the ’90’s
We have people on drugs, uh, which are unavailable, uh, and, only available through Burzynski
So, if he couldn’t give them, to people, then they wouldn’t get ’em, and, they’re terminal, and, they’re doing well
I mean, or they’re not going to do as well, or they’re going to die
So, it’s, I guess it, it’s sort of the same thing here, ah, uh, only, uh, the irony is all these drugs are, approved by the FDA, and most cancer patients get off-label, uh, drugs
Drugs off-label
So that’s, very common in cancer
It’s just that not common with the drug used on these patients, and in the combinations used

So, this finally
Whe, when you’ve, uh, won these cases, I mean, there must be, it must be good, right ?
It must be good feeling

I had a good feeling last week
I mean, I mean, you know, or I’ve been working non-stop, for months, every day
I mean, there’s no day off in this kind of stuff
It’s just constant
It’s just, his war
There’s always something to do, and then I’m a solo practitioner
So, when the judge cut the heart of the Board’s case out, I’ve been telling the Board, that they can’t, that they have no basis to, to, to bring charges against him, for several years, since 2010
, 2009, and they’re not listening, and, and, I was pretty sure that once you had a judge look at the case, they would, rule in our favor, you know, but the problem is the Board is, like a law unto themselves, and they think they can do anything, and, uh, they just changed the law, in September
So actually, the Board has no recourse
They, they used to be able to change findings of facts, and conclusions of law, but as of September, 2011, they can no longer do so
So, if the, judges’ ruling s, uh, stands, as I think they will, their only remedy is going to be to appeal to a State District Court, and they’re not used to that, because they, like exercising, uh, complete authority
So, they’re in a new position, and I’m sure this is the 1st case, that they’ve ever, not gotten what they want to, from, from a judge, administrative law judge, and not being able to correct it
So, I mean, that, this is a good ti, completely new experience for the Board, and I feel bad for them (both: laughing)

You, you, you do
As a Board they all sit down, and as a group of people, and talk about Dr. Burzynski, and, and, and work out how they’re gonna bring him down, and then ?

Well, that’s more the conspiracy
I, I, I, I think that, some of the Board members, may know of him
He, but, but, but like I say, he’s appeared in front of these informal settlement conferences, and basically, individually they, I mean, exonerate him, of, of the main charges, but I, I, I think that, you know, when we talk about the Board, the Board other than these a, acting informal settlement conferences, where you have one Board member, and one member of some district disciplinary review committee, we’re not really talking about the Board members, these doctors, and lay members of the Board, we’re talking about the Board staff, and that’s the lawyers and administrators of the Board, and I think, you know, I don’t know
I have some, uh, uh, they need to clean house
I mean, they’re getting some very, very bad legal advice, and I, I just think the legal advice at the top, is, is, is horrible, and, and they need to make some dramatic changes, and I think it would be better for the people of Texas if they, just did some house cleaning with the administrative staff there

And what do you think about the way that, uh, Dr. Burzynski’s been , what’s the word, in England, he’s got a very bad press there

(Alright ?)

and, um, why do you think that is ?

Uh, why, well, I mean, look
I mean, I think, people have opinions
They’re,
they have the right to express opinions
I mean, I think, uh, some of his agents did some things that I think, were not wise, in retrospect
I mean

Mhmm

Uh,

The stuff with the, this kid, this blogger

Yes

(?)

And I think that, uh
I think you have to be very careful, about what you tell people that are expressing opinions, and, you know, I mean, I, I, I think, you know, I think there’s a reason why, lawyers get involved in these cases, and should be involved, and I think what happens is, you know, I think there was a, you know, a well meaning, individual, who just went too far, and I think stirred things up unnecessarily so
You know, I mean, I think someone who had some legal training, acting on Burzynski’s behalf, might not have made some of the, you know, just faux pas that were made
So, I mean, that stirred, some things up, and I think

(?) stirred something up that was already there ?
You know, ’cause, I know, I’ve spoken to so many people in the U.K., and, uh, and you find very few people that have anything positive to say
In fact, a friend of mine who’s a famous doctor on television, when I was here, he was on British television with a little girl, and her father, who were trying to, uh, raise money to, um, come over here and, um, in fact, they couldn’t come anywhere, come, they couldn’t come anyway, because, the, uh, FDA said that this type of brain tumor, she couldn’t be treated anyway
But this doctor, who’s a friend of mine said, uh, Dr. Burzynski is, you know, he’s a medical pioneer
He’s, uh, uh, he said that and then literally, for 2 months, non-stop, I think especially on Twitter, they said that he never should have said this, and the guy is a quack, and he’s a, he’s a fraud, and

So your, your friend got in trouble for saying that he’s a pioneer ?

He didn’t get in trouble, but I mean he got a lot of bad press, for speaking on television with this child next to him, saying that, Dr. Burzynski was, you know, a pioneer, and pioneers often have a hard time, and

Right, right

And, you know, you look at Twitter, uh, you probably don’t
You could be (laugh) and you just see, it’s probably, probably the only, 30, hard, hard core people, who spend, all of their time, trying to

Yeah, I think that’s right
I think it’s a very small group, of people, that are making pretend it’s a big movement
I mean, we’ve looked, at some of the traffic
We’ve analyzed some of the traffic
I don’t even think it’s 30
I think it’s more like, 3, or 4, or 5, that are creating things, and then someone had some friend who’s an actor, who has, you know, 3 million followers, and all
So it’s really a very small group of people, but historically, medical doctors who have stood up for Burzynski, have had negative consequences
We had, someone from the National Cancer Institute, NIH testify, this Nick Patronas, and he got in a lot of trouble for doing that
So, you know, it’s not, it’s, unfortunately, you know, speaking up for Burzynski can have, uh, negative career consequences, or, or just some bad P.R., but that’s, part of being a pioneer
It doesn’t mean that, uh, Burz, I mean, if anything, I mean, it shows, it shows that’s like the medical mafia
Yeah
So, that’s what I call, the church of medical orthodoxy
So, that’s what I call
So

Well I, I think it’s gonna be so interesting when I get this film broadcasted, to see what kind of reaction we get
It, it’s just a story I felt I had to (?)

Where are, where are you going to try and get it ?

I’m going to try and get it
I know people at the BBC

Right

I’ve worked in television
So I’m going to try

Oh really, (?)

I’m gonna try those avenues, but you know what ?
Even if it doesn’t

You have cable
You have some kind of public access ?

Yeah
I’ve, I’ve worked in television for years
So I’ve, I have a very good stab at getting it out there, but if I don’t, I’ll get it broadcasted on the Internet

Oh sure
You do, do a YouTube or something, or do what Merola did as a documentary

(?)

That’s had an amazing impact

Yeah
He’s making a sequel
Eric was just over in England

Oh really ?

I looked after him when he came over

Yeah
He wanted to talk to some of the patients and doctors

Eric, I said, ah, you know, so, we’ll see
But listen, I really appreciate the opportunity to ah

Ok, no problem

really, to be able to talk to you
======================================

======================================
http://www.richardjaffe.com
======================================

“The Skepticsโ„ข” Burzynski Bias, Censorship, Lies, and Alibi’s: September 28, 2013 โ€œThe Skepticsโ„ขโ€ Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz โ€“ 2:19:51

โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
BB – Bob Blaskiewicz
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
1:25:14
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
BB“Well we do have for for for for one thing, um, I guess to understand is that we are uh motivated by um uh a respect
======================================
Bob, would that include “a respect” for “facts” ?

Because you seem to be the Hillary Clinton of “The Skepticsโ„ข”, in that you want people to think of the “children”, yet you also seem to want people to ignore that your “facts” might be “factually-challenged” and tainted by your “bias”
======================================
BB“this is the one thing that that all Skeptics I think um are uh respect critical thinking
======================================
Bob, I am very “critical” in my “thinking” of “The Skepticsโ„ข” who indicate that they supposedly want to “debate” and who claim that they will “respond on my blog” because “it only seems fair”, but then do NOT respond

Is THAT the kind of “critical thinking” you are referring to ? [1]
======================================
BB“um, and um respect scientific uh a we weโ€™re mostly scientific enthusiasts
======================================
Bob, would that include Trollolo Mark McAndrew (@MarkMcan) who exhibited what type of “scientific enthusiasts” “The Skepticsโ„ข” attract, when he Trollolo’d all over “The Telegraph” ? [2]
======================================
BB“but for the most part we all respect scientific consensus
======================================
Bob, does that include the “scientific consensus” reached by the doctors who decided that Burzynski’s antineoplastons exhibited “antitumor activity” ? [3]
======================================
BB“and we respect scientific method
======================================
Bob, then why does your “The Other Burzynski Patient Group” (TOBPG) blog NOT “respect the scientific method” by indicating if those patients had no prior treatment, biopsy only, surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, or some other treatment, and how long they were on any therapy, if any ?
======================================
BB – “and have an enthusiasm for living in the real world”
======================================
Bob, exactly what “world” are you living in that you adopt lying and deception as part of your agenda regarding Burzynski ?
======================================
BB – “this is something that like all of us us are about”
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
1:26:00
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
Bob, do you mean what I wrote about above?
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – September 28, 2013 โ€œThe Skepticsโ„ขโ€ Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz โ€“ 2:19:51
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/september-28-2013-the-skeptics-burzynski-discussion-by-bob-blaskiewicz-21951/
======================================
[2] – โ€œThe Skepticsโ„ขโ€ Mark McAndrew is Trollolo:
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/25/the-skeptics-mark-mcandrew-is-trollolo/
======================================
[3] – Critiquing: National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) CancerNet โ€œfact sheetโ€
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/critiquing-national-cancer-institute-nci-at-the-national-institutes-of-health-nih-cancernet/
======================================