Critiquing: Amelia’s family ‘mislead by cancer clinic’

6/5/2013 – This article was published By Getreading [1]

“A family who sent their terminally ill daughter to the US for experimental treatment said the clinic misled them about her chances of survival

“The parents of Pride of Reading Child of Courage winner, four-year-old Amelia Saunders who died in January, say they were told she had a 54 per cent chance of survival with the clinical trial in Houston, Texas

“However mum Chantal Saunders, 36, believes the actual figure was just one per cent
——————————————————————
Based on what ?
——————————————————————
“A BBC Panorama investigation shown on Monday questioned whether the Burzynski Clinic was “selling hope” to families
——————————————————————
Aren’t all cancer treatments “selling hope” ?
——————————————————————
“In it, Mrs Saunders said:”

“I think that’s wrong” [54 per cent figure]

“I think that’s a complete lie”

“I think one per cent is a more accurate figure.”
——————————————————————
Based on what ?
——————————————————————
“Dad Richard, 35, says he has only found two patients of Dr Stanislaw Burzynski with the same rare brain tumour as Amelia who survived long-term”

“Mr Saunders, from Lower Earley, said:”

“It didn’t work for Amelia but we absolutely know it works for other people.”

“It’s hard to believe it works for Amelia’s tumour type and that’s what we have found tricky”

“I’ve had all sorts of excuses from them as to why they won’t release data on how many patients they treat and the outcomes”

“I think the figures Panorama were given show there was 700-odd patients they treated and something like 15 per cent survived over five years
——————————————————————
Panorama’s figures were:

“They say 776 patients with brain tumours were treated in trials before 2008.”

“And that 15.5% had survived more than five years, which compares favourably to other treatments.” [2]
——————————————————————
“If you look at all brain tumours that’s almost identical to any other treatment”
——————————————————————
Based on what ?
——————————————————————
“If you look at Amelia’s tumour alone you’re looking at almost zero per cent.”

Amelia was diagnosed with a rare tumour on her brain stem in February last year

“Her devastated family was told by doctors there was no treatment available in Britain”

“After finding out about Burzynski’s clinical trial, which has been running for 20 years, Amelia’s family decided to raise the money needed for the ‘antineoplaston’ treatment – a staggering £250,000 – in just a few weeks through donations”

Mrs Saunders, who also has two-year-old daughter Charlotte, said:”

“He was giving us more hope than I think realistically there was”
——————————————————————
Based on what ?
——————————————————————
Mr Saunders added:”

“We find it very hard to believe the treatment did nothing”

“We did no chemotherapy with her”

“To keep it stable for 11 months is incredible in itself, but how do we prove that?”

“We can’t.”
——————————————————————
Why not ?

Were there not scans ?
——————————————————————
“In November last year Dr Burzynski told the family a new scan showed Amelia’s tumour was breaking down

UK doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital in London said it actually showed the tumour was continuing to grow
——————————————————————
Based on what ?

Great Ormond Street Hospital having 36 years of experience treating patients with antineoplastons ?
——————————————————————
“The family decided to stop the Burzynski treatment a few weeks later”
——————————————————————
Based on what ?
——————————————————————
“Although the family now has doubts over Burzynski’s success rate, Richard says they have spoken to others who have been helped by the drug”
——————————————————————
“The family now has doubts over Burzynski’s success rate” ?

What was all this, then ?

a) “A family who sent their terminally ill daughter to the US for experimental treatment said the clinic misled them about her chances of survival

b) “However mum Chantal Saunders, 36, believes the actual figure was just one per cent

c) “I think that’s wrong” [54 per cent figure]

“I think that’s a complete lie”

d) “I think one per cent is a more accurate figure.”

e) “He was giving us more hope than I think realistically there was”
——————————————————————
“He said:”

“We asked repeatedly throughout the time Amelia was under treatment for evidence to back up his claims, and he at no point produced this”

“We found patients ourselves through Facebook, forums, email and word of mouth”

“We want everyone to know that there are people who are living proof that the treatment works – but it just didn’t for our little girl”

“We just wish Dr Burzynski would speak the truth, and release proper, tangible results.”
——————————————————————
So, you wanted him to “release proper, tangible results” before the clinical trials were finished ?
——————————————————————
“The Saunders family have donated the rest of the money raised for Amelia to cancer research and other charities”

“This included £50,000 to a cancer treatment research team at the University of Nottingham

“Its Professor Richard Grundy said it was “unethical” for Dr Burzynski not to publish results from his trial
——————————————————————
So, you wanted him to “publish results from his trial” before the clinical trial was finished ?
——————————————————————
“Unfortunately the results from Dr Burzynski’s clinic are not published in any form that’s acceptable to the scientific community,” he said”
——————————————————————
So a donation of £50,000 was made, which included to a cancer treatment research team at the University of Nottingham, where Professor Richard Grundy; who exhibits NO knowledge of antineoplastons in this article, is

How “convenient” for him and the University

In my opinion,’ it is “unethical” for Professor Grundy to NOT share his findings re Dr. Burzynski’s 2003-2010 phase 2 clinical trial preliminary reports [3]

He reminds of the situation that Burzynski found himself in when he relates that clinical investigators decided to change the protocol without his approval on a clinical trial of antineoplastons

Seriously, who in their right mind would ignore the input of the inventor and developer of a medicine with close to 20 years of clinical experience, and think they know more than that person ? [4]
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – Reading Post, Amelia’s family ‘mislead by cancer clinic’, By Getreading | 5 Jun 2013 07:59
——————————————————————
http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/amelia-saunders-family-mislead-burzynski-4051287
======================================
[2] – 8/4/2013 – Critiquing Dr David H. “Orac” Gorski, M.D., Ph.D, LIAR: Stanislaw Burzynski versus the BBC:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/04/critiquing-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-m-d-ph-d-liar-stanislaw-burzynski-versus-the-bbc/
======================================
[3] – 9/22/2013 – Critiquing Wikipedia: Burzynski Clinic – 2013 BBC documentary, Curing cancer or ‘selling hope’ to the vulnerable?;
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/22/critiquing-wikipedia-burzynski-clinic-2013-bbc-documentary-curing-cancer-or-selling-hope-to-the-vulnerable/
======================================
[4] – Critiquing: National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) CancerNet “fact sheet”:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/critiquing-national-cancer-institute-nci-at-the-national-institutes-of-health-nih-cancernet/
======================================

Advertisements

Critiquing: National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) CancerNet “fact sheet”

[1] – 1995 (10/1995) – The National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) issued its CancerNet “fact sheet”

The problem is that there were “factual issues” with the CancerNet “fact sheet”
——————————————————————
[0] – All Americans are “presumed to know the law:”

Title 18, Part I, Chapter 47, § 1001

18 USC § 1001 – Statements or entries generally

(3) “makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry”
——————————————————————
Below is how the “fact sheet” looked before and after the “fact sheet’s” “factual issues” were fixed
======================================
BOLD = changes
======================================
[1] – 10/1995 – CancerNet from the National Cancer Institute

CANCER FACTS

National Cancer Institute
National Institutes of Health
——————————————————————
[2] – 5/20/2002 – CANCER FACTS

National Cancer Institute • National Institutes of Health Department of Health and Human Services
======================================
[1] – 10/1995 – National Cancer Institute-Sponsored Clinical Trials of Antineoplastons

Antineoplastons are a group of compounds originally isolated from urine by Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, who claims that they inhibit cancer cell growth
——————————————————————
[2] – 5/20/2002 – Antineoplastons

Antineoplastons are a group of synthetic compounds that were originally isolated from human blood and urine by Stanislaw Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D., in Houston, Texas
======================================
[1] – 10/1995 – Dr. Burzynski has used these compounds to treat patients with various cancers
——————————————————————
[2] – 5/20/2002 – Dr. Burzynski has used antineoplastons to treat patients with a variety of cancers
======================================
[1] – 10/1995 – In 1991, a “best case series” review was conducted by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) to evaluate clinical responses in a group of patients treated at Dr. Burzynski’s Houston facility
——————————————————————
[2] – 5/20/2002 – In 1991, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) conducted a review to evaluate the clinical responses in a group of patients treated with antineoplastons at the Burzynski Research Institute in Houston
======================================
[1] – 10/1995 – For this review, Dr. Burzynski selected from his entire clinical experience seven brain tumor patients whom he felt had a beneficial effect from antineoplastons
——————————————————————
[2] – 5/20/2002 – The medical records of seven brain tumor patients who were thought to have benefited from treatment with antineoplastons were reviewed by NCI
——————————————————————
[3] – 10/27/1995 – Burzynski objected to [1] in a 7 page letter to Richard Klausner, M.D., Director, National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), on page 1:

[A] – Gives the reader the impression that in his entire clinical experience he had only 7 patients who benefitted from antineoplaston treatment

[B] – He prepared not 7, but dozens of cases for the NCI reviewers

[C] – The reviewers were able to spend just one day at the clinic–enough time to review only 7 cases

(averaging one case per hour)
======================================
[1] – 10/1995 – This series did not constitute a formal clinical trial, since it was a retrospective review of medical records, did not include all available patient information, and included only cases selected by Dr. Burzynski
——————————————————————
[2] – 5/20/2002 – This did not constitute a clinical trial but, rather, was a retrospective review of medical records, called a “best case series.”
——————————————————————
[3] – 10/27/1995 – Burzynski objected to [1] in a 7 page letter to Richard Klausner, M.D., Director, National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), on page 1:

[D] – The patient medical records that NCI scientists reviewed were exhaustive and did contain “all available patient information.”

[E] – Michael Hawkins, M.D., leader of the site visit team, specifically complimented him on how complete and well-organized they were

[F] – 1991 (11/15/1991) – Michael J. Hawkins, M.D., Chief, Investigational Drug Branch, Department of Health &Human Services (HHS), Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute (NCI) sent a 1 page Memorandum Re:
Antineoplaston
to Decision Network:, which advised, in part:

“Seven patient cases were presented at the site visit and the records, pathology slides and scans documenting response were reviewed”
======================================
[1] – 10/1995 – The reviewers of this series determined that there was presumptive evidence of antitumor activity and NCI then proposed that Phase II clinical trials be conducted to evaluate more definitively the response rate and toxicity of antineoplastons in adult patients with refractory brain tumors
——————————————————————
[2] – 5/20/2002 – The reviewers of this series found evidence of antitumor activity, and NCI proposed that formal clinical trials be conducted to further evaluate the response rate and toxicity of antineoplastons in adults with advanced brain tumors
——————————————————————
[F] – 1991 (11/15/1991) – Michael J. Hawkins, M.D., Chief, Investigational Drug Branch, Department of Health &Human Services (HHS), Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute (NCI)
sent a 1 page Memorandum Re:
Antineoplaston
to Decision Network:, which advised, in part:

“It was the opinion of the site visit team that antitumor activity was documented in this best case series and that the conduct of Phase II trials was indicated to determine the response rate”

[3] – 10/27/1995 – Burzynski objected to [1] in a 7 page letter to Richard Klausner, M.D., Director, National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), on page 1:

[G] – The statement of the NCI scientists who actually reviewed patient records was quite different from the above

Their report stated:

“The site visit team determined that antitumor activity was documented in the best case series and that the conduct of Phase II trials was indicated to determine the response rate

(minutes of Decision Network committee meeting)
======================================
[1] – 10/1995 – The decision by NCI to sponsor the study of an agent in a clinical trial does not indicate that the agent is or will be useful in the treatment of cancer patients, only that it merits further evaluation in a research setting

Efforts to study antineoplastons in a scientifically rigorous manner have required complex interactions among NCI, clinical investigators, the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) Office of Alternative Medicine, the Food and Drug Administration, advocates from the alternative medicine community, and Dr. Burzynski
======================================
[1] – 10/1995 – Two protocols were developed by the participating Cancer Center investigators with extensive review and input from NCI and Dr. Burzynski
——————————————————————
[2] – 5/20/2002 – Investigators at several cancer centers developed protocols for two phase II clinical trials with review and input from NCI and Dr. Burzynski
======================================
[1] – 10/1995 – These studies began in 1993 at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Mayo Clinic, and the NIH Clinical Center
——————————————————————
[2] – 5/20/2002 – These NCI-sponsored studies began in 1993 at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, the Mayo Clinic, and the Warren Grant Magnuson Clinical Center at the National Institutes of Health
======================================
[1] – 10/1995 – However, accrual to these studies was very slow and only nine patients were enrolled
——————————————————————
[2] – 5/20/2002 – Patient enrollment in these studies was slow, and by August 1995 only nine patients had entered the trials
======================================
[1] – 10/1995 – On 8/18/1995, the studies were closed because a consensus could not be reached with Dr. Burzynski on the proposed changes in the protocol to increase accrual, and there was no hope of completing the studies in a timely manner
——————————————————————
[2] – 5/20/2002 – Attempts to reach a consensus on proposed changes to increase accrual could not be reached by Dr. Burzynski , NCI staff, and investigators, and on 8/18/1995, the studies were closed prior to completion
——————————————————————
[3] – 10/27/1995 – Burzynski objected to [1] in a 7 page letter to Richard Klausner, M.D., Director, National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), on page 1:

[H] – The only reason the clinical trials of antineoplastons were stopped is that NCI would not conduct them as per our written agreement

[I] – Even the NCI’s own previous “fact sheet” on antineoplastons, dated 2/17/1994, states that

“The NCI reviewed 7 cases of patients with primary brain tumors that were treated by Dr. Burzynski with antineoplastons and concluded that antitumor responses occurred

[J] – The NCI never made any effort to “reach a consensus.”

[K] – It simply violated the written protocol we had agreed upon

[L] – Without informing me, NCI changed the rules to allow patients with any size or number of tumors, low performance scores, and spinal cord metastases

[M] – When I found out and insisted that NCI either conduct the study as agreed or inform patients that I felt it was conducting the study improperly, NCI cancelled it
======================================
[1] – 10/1995 – Because these studies were closed prior to completion, no conclusions can be made about the effectiveness or toxicity of antineoplastons
——————————————————————
[2] – 5/20/2002 – Because of the small number of patients in these trials, no definitive conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of treatment with antineoplastons
======================================
[1] – 10/1995 – It is rare that this kind of NCI-sponsored clinical study cannot be successfully completed

The NCI is disappointed by this outcome but is continuing to evaluate related compounds in clinical trials in order to determine if they may be of benefit in the treatment of patients with cancer
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – Date Last Modified 10/1995
——————————————————————
CancerNet from the National Cancer Institute

CANCER FACTS

National Cancer Institute
National Institutes of Health

National Cancer Institute-Sponsored Clinical Trials of Antineoplastons

Antineoplastons are a group of compounds originally isolated from urine by Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, who claims that they inhibit cancer cell growth

Dr. Burzynski has used these compounds to treat patients with various cancers

In 1991, a “best case series” review was conducted by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) to evaluate clinical responses in a group of patients treated at Dr. Burzynski’s Houston facility

For this review, Dr. Burzynski selected from his entire clinical experience seven brain tumor patients whom he felt had a beneficial effect from antineoplastons

This series did not constitute a formal clinical trial, since it was a retrospective review of medical records, did not include all available patient information, and included only cases selected by Dr. Burzynski

The reviewers of this series determined that there was presumptive evidence of antitumor activity and NCI then proposed that Phase II clinical trials be conducted to evaluate more definitively the response rate and toxicity of antineoplastons in adult patients with refractory brain tumors

The decision by NCI to sponsor the study of an agent in a clinical trial does not indicate that the agent is or will be useful in the treatment of cancer patients, only that it merits further evaluation in a research setting

Efforts to study antineoplastons in a scientifically rigorous manner have required complex interactions among NCI, clinical investigators, the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) Office of Alternative Medicine, the Food and Drug Administration, advocates from the alternative medicine community, and Dr. Burzynski

Two protocols were developed by the participating Cancer Center investigators with extensive review and input from NCI and Dr. Burzynski

These studies began in 1993 at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Mayo Clinic, and the NIH Clinical Center

However, accrual to these studies was very slow and only nine patients were enrolled

On 8/18/1995, the studies were closed because a consensus could not be reached with Dr. Burzynski on the proposed changes in the protocol to increase accrual, and there was no hope of completing the studies in a timely manner

Because these studies were closed prior to completion, no conclusions can be made about the effectiveness or toxicity of antineoplastons

It is rare that this kind of NCI-sponsored clinical study cannot be successfully completed

The NCI is disappointed by this outcome but is continuing to evaluate related compounds in clinical trials in order to determine if they may be of benefit in the treatment of patients with cancer
======================================
[2] – This fact sheet was reviewed on 7/13/01

Editorial changes were made on 5/20/02
——————————————————————
CANCER FACTS

National Cancer Institute • National Institutes of Health Department of Health and Human Services

Antineoplastons

Antineoplastons are a group of synthetic compounds that were originally isolated from human blood and urine by Stanislaw Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D., in Houston, Texas

Dr. Burzynski has used antineoplastons to treat patients with a variety of cancers

In 1991, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) conducted a review to evaluate the clinical responses in a group of patients treated with antineoplastons at the Burzynski Research Institute in Houston

The medical records of seven brain tumor patients who were thought to have benefited from treatment with antineoplastons were reviewed by NCI

This did not constitute a clinical trial but, rather, was a retrospective review of medical records, called a “best case series.”

The reviewers of this series found evidence of antitumor activity, and NCI proposed that formal clinical trials be conducted to further evaluate the response rate and toxicity of antineoplastons in adults with advanced brain tumors

Investigators at several cancer centers developed protocols for two phase II clinical trials with review and input from NCI and Dr. Burzynski

These NCI-sponsored studies began in 1993 at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, the Mayo Clinic, and the Warren Grant Magnuson Clinical Center at the National Institutes of Health

Patient enrollment in these studies was slow, and by August 1995 only nine patients had entered the trials

Attempts to reach a consensus on proposed changes to increase accrual could not be reached by Dr. Burzynski , NCI staff, and investigators, and on 8/18/1995, the studies were closed prior to completion

A paper describing this research, “Phase II Study of Antineoplastons A10 (NSC 648539) and AS2-1 (NSC 620261) in Patients With Recurrent Glioma,” appears in Mayo Clinic Proceedings 1999, 74:137–145

Because of the small number of patients in these trials, no definitive conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of treatment with antineoplastons

At present, the Burzynski Research Institute is conducting trials using antineoplastons for a variety of cancers
======================================
[1] – Date Last Modified 10/1995
——————————————————————

20130919-152521.jpg

20130919-152702.jpg
======================================
[2] – This fact sheet was reviewed on 7/13/2001

Editorial changes were made on 5/20/2002
——————————————————————

20130919-174650.jpg

20130919-174914.jpg
——————————————————————
[2]
——————————————————————
http://www.emory.edu/KomenEd/PDF/Treatment/Antineoplastons.pdf
======================================
[3] – 10/27/1995 – Burzynski sent a 7 page letter to Richard Klausner, M.D., Director, National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH)
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/24-1995-10271995-burzynski-to-dr-richard-klausner-7-pgs/
======================================
[0] – Title 18, Part I, Chapter 47, § 1001
——————————————————————
18 USC § 1001 – Statements or entries generally
——————————————————————
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001
======================================
[F] – 1991 (11/15/1991) – Michael J. Hawkins, M.D., Chief, Investigational Drug Branch, Department of Health &Human Services (HHS), Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute (NCI) sent a 1 page Memorandum Re:
Antineoplaston
to Decision Network
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/17/5-1991-11151991-dr-michael-j-hawkins-to-decision-network/
======================================
[G] – 1991 (12/2/1991) – NCI Decision Network Report on Antineoplastons:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/17/6-1991-12291-nci-decision-network-report-on-antineoplastons/
======================================
Critiquing: Dr. Michael A. Friedman, Dr. Mario Sznol, Robert B. Lanman,
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Mayo Clinic, Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), Public Health Service, Quality Assurance and Compliance Section, Regulatory Affairs Branch (RAB), Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP), Division of Cancer Treatment (DCT), National Cancer Center (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
, Stanislaw Burzynski: On the arrogance of ignorance about cancer and targeted therapies:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/critiquing-stanislaw-burzynski-on-the-arrogance-of-ignorance-about-cancer-and-targeted-therapies/
======================================

[3] – 1991 (10/30/1991) – Dr. Dorothy K. Macfarlane Memorandum – 10/4/1991 – site visit (5 pgs.)

This page is linked to:
=====================================
Critiquing: Dr. Michael A. Friedman, Dr. Mark G. Malkin, Dr. Mario Sznol, Robert B. Lanman, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Mayo Clinic, Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), Public Health Service, Quality Assurance and Compliance Section, Regulatory Affairs Branch (RAB), Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP), Division of Cancer Treatment (DCT), National Cancer Center (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Stanislaw Burzynski: On the arrogance of ignorance about cancer and targeted therapies
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/critiquing-stanislaw-burzynski-on-the-arrogance-of-ignorance-about-cancer-and-targeted-therapies/
======================================
[3] – 1991 (10/30/1991) – Dr. Dorothy K. Macfarlane Memorandum – 10/4/1991 – site visit (5 pgs.)
——————————————————————
Dorothy K. Macfarlane, M.D., Head, Quality Assurance and Compliance Section, Regulatory Affairs Branch (RAB), Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP), Department of Health &Human Services (HHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Review of Brain Tumor Cases Treated With Antineoplastons

On 10/4/1991, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) staff (Dr. Michael Hawkins, Dr. Michael Hamilton, Dr. Dorothy Macfarlane) and invited consultants (Dr. Nicholas Patronas, neuroradiologist, National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Center, and Dr. James Nelson, neuropathologist, AFIP) visited the offices of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski in Houston, Texas to review 7 selected brain tumor cases which Dr. Burzynski felt represented the best responses achieved with Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 treatment

Following is a summary of each case history, as described by Dr. Burzynski, and the assessment of slides and scans by the review team

Patient #1 (E.L.)
Patient #2 (P.W.)

Pg. 2

Patient #2 (P.W.)
Patient #3 (J.K.)

Pg. 3

Patient #3 (J.K.)
Patient #4 (P.M.)
Patient #5 (H.E.)

Pg. 4

Patient #5 (H.E.)
Patient #6 (R.W.)

Pg. 5

Patient #6 (R.W.)
Patient #7 (H.M.)

Dorothy K. Macfarlane, M.D.

Distribution:

Dr. Michael Friedman
Dr. Michael Hawkins
Dr. Michael Hamilton
Dr. Nicholas Patronas
Dr. James Nelson
Dr. Michael Grever

20130912-195044.jpg

20130912-195656.jpg

20130912-200248.jpg

20130912-201140.jpg

20130912-201524.jpg