Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski, Stanislaw R. Burzynski, Stanislaw Burzynski, Stan R. Burzynski, Stan Burzynski, S. R. BURZYNSKI, S. Burzynski, Arthur Burzynski, Hippocrates Hypocrite Hypocrites Critic Critics Critical HipoCritical
—————————————————————— Pat Clarkson, and I come from Danville, California, which is near San Francisco, and I have multiple myeloma; which is not a common cancer
About 20,000 people in the United States have the disease, and about 10,000 die every year, and 10,000 get the disease
So it’s a relatively small number of folks,that have it
So it’s not well
It’s not as well researched as some of the other cancers, um, but we’re hoping that the, um, Burzynski Clinic can help me
There’s not much hope for me
I, I have probably, a, uh, prognosis of a couple, couple years
Maybe a year or two to live, um, without, um, without I, I, an alternative method of treatment, and that’s why
If I could say this a little differently
The conventional medicine, or what we would call conventional medicine, which is, you know, chemotherapy, radiation, uh, surgery; which is not possible with, uh, multiple myeloma because there is no, no large tumor that can be surgically removed, uh, the doctors have told us basically there is no cure, and that, and I, I say doctors; this is our local oncologist, um, and the head of oncology at, um, University of California, San Francisco; which is a very well respected school, uh, hospital, that there is no, uh, no reasonable possibility of a cure
Um, by contrast, uh, Dr. Burzynski, we have found out, has, uh, cured several people with myeloma, and he’s cured many other people with different kinds of cancer
The problem is, uh, that the FDA in its wisdom, will not allow us to, uh, be treated with the, uh, antineoplastons that are the backbone of the Burzynski therapy
Well they’ve told us that they don’t have evidence that it’s, um, that it’s an effective treatment
Uh, that, they don’t have evidence that it’s not, non-toxic; which in fact, uh, is incorrect because the FDA does have evidence that it’s non-toxic
Through the Senator’s office at the, the FDA is saying that they, they don’t know for sure that it’s not toxic; that’s not true, uh, and they don’t know that it will cure the disease, and therefor they can’t approve it
Pat’s willing to take the odds of a treatment, that is not 100% guaranteed, and let’s face it, most of the treatments that are approved by the FDA, are toxic, and are not guaranteed
So we don’t really understand, uh, why they have an issue with it, except that, uh, there’s an awful lot of money involved
Um, one of the peculiarities of the FDA, we understand they’re, by law, required to get much of their funding from the very companies that they’re supposed to be supervising
As, as I understand, uh, the Constitution, there is no basis in the Constitution for the Federal Government to be telling, an American, who they can use for a doctor or what drugs that they can use for, uh, their, their illness
Yet, over the years this, uh, this power has grown and been accepted at the FDA, and now it’s a, uh, uh, it’s, it’s out of control
We have asked the FDA what is different about my case
Why I don’t get an exemption
We don’t have a response yet to that, to that question
While doctors are generally very bright; they have to be to get through medical school, but they don’t have any training in critical, critical thinking, and most of them that I run into are not particularly good critical thinkers
The world they live in is to memorize a set of symptoms, then to look up or remember what those symptoms suggest in terms of a disease, and then remember or look up what the treatment is
So, here we have, um, uh, Dr. Burzynski, who is also a Ph.Dbiochemist, which is a, a interesting and, and very useful, uh, combination, who discovered that, um, in people who have cancer, they generally don’t have, or they have very reduced levels of what he now calls, uh, antineoplastons, and neoplaston is simply the medical jargon for cancer; so it’s anti-cancer, in effect, um, he discover the people who, uh, don’t have cancer, do have, high levels of this, and determined from research that these are controlled by, um, by the genes, and it’s part of the body’s immune system, in effect
We all produce cancer cells everyday of our lives
Like we produce bac, or have bacteria in our gi, digestive tract, that is controlled, by certain genes
In this case, um, he discovered that by, uh, by injecting, uh, or infusing, uh, these, they’re called peptides, peptide, that the patient could be helped
How, how innocuous, or how anti-toxic, can you have
It’s a, it’s a substance th, the body itself produces, unless the genes have shut down
Which is the case in, uh, some, in most, or at least half I guess, of multiple myeloma cases
My, my message would be that they don’t have the right to tell me to hold a, a life or a death, um, decision
They, they don’t have the right to tell me that, um, I can’t have treatment that I seek, or I will die
I don’t think they have that right to do that
Treatment is available
Uh, it is our choice
We are free Americans
We’re well informed
Uh, well educated
It should be our choice, and the Federal government in any, in any form should not have the authority to interfere with that
Uh, nothing’s guaranteed in this world, um, but we’ve got, um, we’ve got some confidence in this clinic and in this treatment
Pat & Steve Clarkson
January 27, 2012
This is our the best and the dearest, uh, patient who came to our clinic 20
2 years ago
22 years ago
and she was in the, she came with Hodgkin lymphoma, and a stage 4, and she didn’t have good, uh, prognosis
How long, did they tell you
—————————————————————— They told me that I was gonna die, of non-Hodgkins lymphoma
That I had a fatal disease
They would treat me for awhile with, uh, chemotherapy and radiation, um, a bone marrow transplant, and, um, we, they, we would see what would happen, but no cure Not a cure at all
That was 22 years ago
Um, I thank God everyday that I found Dr. Burzynski’s clinic, and Dr. Burzynski and his staff
Um, I was on his treatment for, um, 3 months when this huge tumor on the side of my neck started to reduce and finally disappeared
So we adopted her as our, uh, family
and now, she is our family member, and many others
So tell me, uh, how did you find out about Dr. Burzynski?
I was in a cancer support group, and, uh, one of the ladies in there said, you know, you have non-Hodgkins lymphoma
There’s a doctor in Houston whose been treating it with very good results
You should go and check it out
Which I went back home to my husband and said: “There’s Dr. Burzynski in Houston, Texas, and he’s having good results,” and, ah, Steve said: “You know, I’ve heard of this doctor
You know, I wrote his name down”
He’d heard about him
Wrote his name down for future use, and I think about, uh, the next couple of days we were in Houston, and we got to the clinic and I just felt I was in the right place
The feeling was so different than being at a UCLA or a USC or Dana Farber
It was just
I knew immediately I was in the right place, and I met Dr. Burzynski
Well first of all Dr. Barbara came out and hugged me, and, uh, it was, it was so wonderful and I’ll never forget the feeling of, of, uh, my first walk into the Burzynski Clinic
So tell me, what did, uh, any, did, did you have an oncologist at home and tell them that you were coming here ?
Yeah, we did
Um, uh, I had an oncologist at UCLA who was a lymphoma specialist, and he was the one that told me I would die of the disease
Um, when we told him that we were going to see Dr. Burzynski, he wasn’t, uh, overjoyed, to say the least, and he told us very negative things and, uh, but I thought, he wasn’t offering me anything, and, uh, when I did get to the Burzynski Clinic, Dr. Burzynski said to me: “I think I can help you,” he said
He didn’t tell me, he was going to cure me
He just said: “I think I can help you,” and, it was non-toxic, and the, um, conventional medicine was offering me high-dose chemotherapy, radiation, and in fact, in mu, as much radiation as people who were, uh, within one mile of ground zero at Hiroshima, and, and they were going to bring me as close to death as possible, and then, rescue me
Uh, and then Dr. Burzynski was going to do this and actually have, where actually I would have hope of a cure, non-toxically
My hair never fell out
I felt well
Um, I lead my normal life
I drove my kids to school
I cleaned the house
It’s a wonderful treatment
So, at what point did you realize, I’m free of cancer ?
Do you remember that point of ?
Uh, well I remember the point
I remember it very well
Um, the, it
It’s so big
Um, I had, uh, several CAT scans
I had 2 CAT scans in a row
The first one that showed no cancer at all, and, um, I had them done at UCLA, and, um, and then I had a second one, 3 months later, and that one was, was absolutely clear
So, um, it was, it was an amazing feeling, and actually 48 hours was following me, because it was, it was a really a big story, um, you know Cancer throughout my body
No, no cancer at all and, and my medical records show, um, you look at my X-rays, my CAT scans, from starting Dr. Burzynski’s treatment, um, to approximately 9 months later
Reduction, reduction, reduction, until there was no cancer
So what did, what did your oncologist say ?
Did you, did you go back to your oncologist and say: “You said I was gonna die”
Uh, yes, we did that
And what did he say ?
And, and actually people would call him and a, people who were interested in Dr. Burzynski, and he would say: “Oh, she’s a spontaneous remission”
He would never accept the fact that I was treated, and cured by Dr. Burzynski, but my medical records prove it, and of, you know I, There are so many patients like me
I’m not the only one
So ok, tell me
Let me ask you a couple more questions
What sort of a person do you think Dr. Burzynski is?
Well aside from being the most wonderful, gentle, sensitive, caring doctor, and you don’t find many of those
I went to many doctors, while, while we were trying to find the answer
Many, and Dr. Burzynski is so above them
He, because he really makes you feel like a person, and that he cares, and, he’s also a genius
He, I know that he speaks about 8 languages
He’s an expert on the Bible
He, he just knows so much about everything
Um, I love to be in the room with him
He’s a very special man
So, you recovered, and then, ’cause you, when did you set up the patient support group, and why did you do that ?
Uh, actually my husband and I did that together, and it was during, um, the trials, uh, the Texas State Board started, in fact, I became a patient, and 2 months later, ah, he was brought to a hearing in front of the Texas State Medical Board, and so Steve and I, um, organized the patients to, um, be at that hearing to support Dr. B, ’cause he’d been going through this long before I became a patient, but, um, we wanted to show support, because I was already starting to fe, I was feeling better already
I was already seeing some reduction, and now my, the medicine was in jeopardy
I, It could be taken away from me at any time
So we decided to organize the patients and to show support, and all the patients wanted to help, a, uh, obviously
So, um, we’d go to every hearing, every, uh, the trial, we were there every day, um, and we would, patients would march in front of the court building, um,
It was, it was really a sight
An unbelievable sight
And why do you think that he was treated the way that he was treated ?
Why do you think they wanted to take him down ?
I think it’s because
There’s many reasons
I think the main reason is because what Dr. Burzynski does is making what all other conventional doctors are doing wrong, because chemotherapy is not the answer Chemotherapy makes people sick, and, uh, most of the time it does not cure people
Um, all that poison and radiation
There’s gotta be a better way, and there is a better way Dr. Burzynski has found it
I was sick
I had cancer 22 years ago
Um, my hair never fell out, and, uh, it was a treatment that I was grateful to be on every day
So how many patients have you come in contact with that Dr. Burzynski
Hundreds, and as you say by my patient group web-site
Um, I think I have about 90 stories on there now, and there are many more, because, um, I haven’t been able to get in touch with everybody, but over the years, uh, people give me their stories
Sometimes people will call me, um, but we, we are a patient group because we, we’ve all been helped or cured by Dr. Burzynski, and we, we want everybody to have access to this treatment
Steve actually had the chance to ask one of, uh, one of the prosecutors, um, at the trial, that exact question: “What would you do,” and he was prosecuting Dr. Burzynski, and he actually said: “I’d be first in line”
So, once you know the whole story, and you know the science, and you, especially if you do the research, um, you, you can come to the truth, and the truth is, Dr. Burzynski, has cured cancer
He cured me
I’ve been in remission for, in remission, for, uh, 22 years, and that’s a cure, and, uh, he could help so many, many, many more people
The, he has breast cancer patients now that are, that are doing so well
He has many
I just talked to an ovarian cancer patient
He has, um, all, all different types of cancers
What he needs is funding from our government
Um, all other doctors and, and, um, institutions, they get ah, mu, get so much money from the government Dr. Burzynski doesn’t get one penny
If we could just think
If, d, if the government would just fund Dr. Burzynski, he could have a cure for all cancers
I believe that with all my heart, and somehow, some day this has to happen
—————————————————————— The Sceptics (10:37)
Yeah, just tell me what this whole kind of skeptic movement
You do any research on Dr. Burzynski there’s a few things
that always come up
This guy Saul
—————————————————————— Saul Green
and some other stuff
So just tell me
What’s that all about and where did that all come from ?
It stems from, uh, a lawsuit that was filed against, uh, Dr. Burzynski
Actually it was, uh, an insurance company, that didn’t wanna pay for, uh, for the treatment
A particular patient had been treated here in Texas, uh, was put into remission
Was successfully treated and then it turns out the insurance company did not wanna pay for it, so they brought in these people
These quote unquote experts Cancer experts of, you know, rather dubious backgrounds
This is all that they do, is they look for ways to demean people
They look for ways to blacken their reputation
They ultimately became a group known as Quack watch, and these were brought in as the expert witnesses to say that this is not an approved treatment, albeit, was not true
They said the treatment didn’t work and clearly it did, and, uh, they have since gotten funding from insurance companies, from the government, private funding, and they go around to debunk things that are against mainstream, um, medicine, and, uh, their, their support comes from the insurance company and from the pharmaceutical companies who benefit from, from their work, and, uh, it expanded
Expanded all over the world to, uh, they’re in the United States, they’re in the U.K., they’re in Australia, and, uh, they have a very big presence
When the internet came into being they, you know, they went viral with this kind of stuff
So when you type in Burzynski, uh, a lot of the negative comes up first
So that’s the first thing you see is all this negative stuff, and it’s all hearsay
None of it has any basis in fact
It’s all lies
Um, you know, he, Dr. Burzynski never did anything illegal ever, and it was all based on, on very questionable legal grounds that he was ever sued, that he was, that any case was ever brought against him by the FDA or the Texas Medical Board, and all of those cases failed
They never held up to scrutiny
They all failed, and here Dr. Burzynski is today, and he’s thriving, and people come here from all over the world to be treated
Many are cured of their cancers, and, uh, all of these people in the Quack watch are gone
Uh, Saul Green has passed away
Uh, I don’t wish him ill, but I’m glad he’s not here, thank you, and all of these other people are gone and they’re not thriving, and they’re just like, you know, they’re like bacteria or like fungus under rocks, and when you shine a light on them, they can’t hold up to the scrutiny
The real light is here
The real truth is here in Houston at the Burzynski Clinic
—————————————————————— Thoughts onDr. Burzynski(13:46)
What do you think of Dr. Burzynski, yourself ?
I, I, I think Mary Jo’s pretty much summed it up
Uh, I, am of course
It, it, it’s not an unbiased opinion
It can’t be
He’s the man that saved my wife
Uh, she was cast off, um, as, as, as an incurable
She was told time and time again, not just by her on, oncologist at UCLA, Dr. Peter Rosen, but we went all over the country
We went to USC in, University of Southern California, UCLA, Stanford Medical, Dana-Farber; which is associated with Harvard, uh, in, uh, Boston, and everywhere we went, she was told: “There’s no hope”
“You’re gonna die”
“It’s just a matter of time”
“We have to see how long, how long it’s gonna take”
Um, against my better wishes, we came to the Burzynski Clinic, and she said: “I’m starting today,” and I said: “Don’t you think we should go back and discuss with Dr. Rosen at UCLA ?
She said: “No, they have nothing to offer me”
She was that brave, and we started that day, and we’ve never looked, we’ve never looked back
So to ask me about what I think about Dr. Burzynski, when my wife was told she was gonna die, and I was already making plans for how am I going to take care of my children without Mary Jo; my life partner, and he saved her life, I’m not gonna give you unbiased
an unbiased opinion of how I feel about the man
There’s probably nobody, that I have greater love and greater respect for, uh, in, in the whole world, and, uh, to add about how, how smart, how intelligent this man is, ah, expert on, on history as Barbara was saying
Expert on religion
He’s an expert on mushrooms
He knows more about mushrooms than any 10 mushroom experts in the world
He knows about bees
Who cares about bees, but he knows everything, because bees happen to be a rich production source of antineoplastons
Who knew ? Dr. Burzynski knew, and that’s why we need to listen to him
We as a society
The world needs to listen to this man
—————————————————————— Conventional Cancer Treatment and The FDA (16:05)
When you put some critical thought, critical analysis, you find that chemotherapy initially works
What it is, it’s a good, the first time around it’s a good tumor shrinking, they’re good tumor shrinking agents, but over the long run they create so many problems that eventually, the tumor becomes, the cells become resistant and the tumor takes over, or, if it is successful in shrinking the tumor to, to a, a size where the patient can survive, what happens after that is there’s a secondary cancer that’s created by the chemotherapy, with very few exceptions Testicular cancer is one exception where it works
Some childhood leukemia’s they’ve had some great success with chemotherapy, but by in large it’s a failed modality, and the side effects are so bad as, as to be called horrific, uh, is how I would describe them from what I’ve seen in, in my family and in my friends, and my associates that’ve had to undergo it
So why do we allow that, when something like antineoplastons and Burzynski’s treatment, totally non-toxic, working with the body, allowing you to lead a normal life, and on it statistically for the number of people that have been treated, uh, compared to the number of people that have walked out of here in remission, or cured after 5 years; whatever definition you wanna use, we don’t allow that
We look at that as, uh, conventional medicine looks at like that as, looks at that as some sort of quackery
This is, this is, uh, critical thinking and science turned on its head, and it doesn’t make sense, and it goes back to what I was saying before
Why it doesn’t make sense, because there’s entrenched financial interests, and there’s a paradigm that says we do for cancer, we do chemotherapy, we do radiation, we do surgery, and that’s it
Anything else is not acceptable, because it goes against the paradigm
In the bureaucracy we know as the FDA
We’ve been fighting them for so long and they’ve been described as “The B Team” “The B Team” is,that they be here when you come in and you start complaining, your problem starts, they be here, and when you decide to quit complaining because you’ve beat your head against the wall for so many years, they still be here (laugh)
So it’s “The B Team”
This is what they do
There, they have a certain set of tasks
Certain things that they’re tasked with
Protection of the food and drug supply of the United States, whatever that means
Whatever they deem it to mean
Whatever they decide it means
That’s what they’re gonna do, and it’s pretty hard to fight that
It’s pretty hard, unless you have a political, unless you have a, a, a, a political, ah, constituency, and you can put a lot of pressure on them
and that’s the only way
So what’s the answer ?
What will, uh
How will Dr. Burzynski prevail ?
Ultimately, in, in my, in my, in my view, the real tragedy is, is that he’s not going to prevail here in the United States
It’s going to be extremely difficult
It’s an uphill battle that, knowing Dr. Burzynski, he’s gonna keep fighting it, uh, and, and he’ll keep fighting that battle, but the real opportunity for him is to, uh, move this product and license it overseas, and, uh, other countries are interested
Other countries are more open, uh, to new modalities
They’re not entrenched, uh, and don’t have the financial, uh, interests, the, that are, the entrenched financial interests like we do here, like chemotherapy and, and, uh, radiation therapy, and I think that’s where ultimately we as Americans, as sad as it is, are going to have to go overseas to be treated and to get this medication
The FDA is so capricious in their decision-making, and in their exception granting, uh, that if Pat had AIDS, and this was anti-AIDS medication; proven or not or only with limited, uh, proven efficaciousness, uh, and proven limited proof that it was somewhat non-toxic, she would be able to get approval like that
The FDA has taken a drug approval process that generally takes anywhere from 10 to 15 years, and where there is political, successful political pressure applied, they have reduced that down to some cases 4 to 8 months as in the case of the anti-HIV drugs, and that’s because there is a very strong, very powerful political lobby in Washington, and throughout the country, and they have been able to apply pressure at key points in, uh, Congress Congress puts that pressure on the FDA, says: “C’mon let’s get the ball forward
These are voting people
We have millions of people in this country with HIV who are compacted together and make a viable political force
Let’s move forward”
In the case of multiple-myeloma
In the case of these cancers or these people that wanna be treated, who have failed all conventional therapy, and wanna be treated by Dr. Burzynski with something that we know works
Something that is, is non-toxic, they, they don’t have
We’re not a viable political force
We’re not important to the Washington bureaucrats, to the Washington lawmakers
So nothing gets done, and these exceptions for the use of antineoplastons are not granted, and that’s, that’s the sad truth
Steve and Mary Jo Siegel
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 
I gave them the opportunity to prove that their article was a legitimate piece of journalism with some semblance of integrity, and NOT just akin to one of “The Skeptics™ phoned-in “rubber-stamped” yellow journalism hit pieces
Instead, it seems that Liz Szabo and / or USA TODAY decided to act as if they had rolled a Spike Lee joint
I sent an e-mail with 2 editorial corrections, and only one (correcting Lisa Merritt’s comment link from taking the reader to the 1999 Mayo Clinic report instead of to her comments), was corrected 
The 2nd correction which they #FAILED to do, earns them well deserved INSOLENCE
—————————————————————— “Burzynski, 70, calls his drugs “antineoplastons” and says he has given them to more than 8,000 patients since 1977.”
However, if you select the “8,000 patients” link, the referenced page does NOT indicate that at all 
—————————————————————— It advises:
—————————————————————— “That same year, Dr. Burzynski founded his clinic in Houston where he’s since treated over 8,000 patients.”
—————————————————————— Nowhere does it indicate that he “treated 8,000 patients” with antineoplastons
The question that Liz Szabo and USA TODAY should answer, is:
1. Who is your “fact-checker”, and 2. are they smarter than a 5th grader ?
In fact, Burzynski’s 2002 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing advises:
” … in 1997, his medical practice was expanded to include traditional cancer treatment options such as chemotherapy, gene targeted therapy, immunotherapy and hormonal therapy in response to FDA requirements that cancer patients utilize more traditional cancer treatment options in order to be eligible to participate in the Company’s Antineoplaston clinical trials”
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?‘ ”
“If the diagnosis wasn’t right to start with, it doesn’t matter what the treatment was.”
“Brain tumors are notoriously difficult to diagnose, Buckner says”
“When dealing with rare brain cancer, doctors may disagree about how to interpret imaging results up to 40% of the time”
I wonder if Dr. Jan Buckner would agree with David Gorski; who is a BREAST cancer oncology specialist, and NOT a BRAIN cancer oncology specialist, who has the presumptiveness to speculate that 3 different medical opinions could have misdiagnosed Tori Moreno in August 1998; who was diagnosed with a very large tumor, about 3 inches in the largest diameter and located in the brain stem, which was too risky for surgery, and about which her parents were told by ALL 3, that Tori’s brain cancer was fatal and, she would die in a few days or at the most, 2-6 weeks, and that there was nothing that could be done, and was finally put on Burzynski’s antineoplaston therapy in October, when she was about 3 ½ months old, and in such condition that they were afraid that she might die at any time, David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., FACS; who claims, “I do know cancer science”, has the audacity, because of his “book learnin'” has the temerity to postulate his “science-based medicine theory” that Miller’s Children at Long Beach Memorial misdiagnosed Tori Moreno’s inoperable stage 4 BSG
David Gorski has the gall to profer that City of Hope misdiagnosed Tori Moreno’s inoperable stage 4 brain stem glioma
David Gorski has the chutzpah to pontificate that Dr. Fred Epstein in New York misdiagnosed Tori Moreno’s inoperable stage IV brainstem glioma 
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 
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 
Get your act together, aye, Canada!
The articlerants and raves on and on about FDA inspection reports from as far back as 1998, but at least they did quote Richard A. Jaffe:
“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 
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 , and which “snake oil” has been approved for, and used in, phase III clinical trials ? 
—————————————————————— Q: Is it, it the phase 2 trial is finished ?
Q: but they’re still accepting people ?
Q: on more like a special ?
A:“Special basis, and, um, sometimes compassionate grounds“
Q: That’s normal ?
A:“(Yes I guess it is a funding issue ?)”
A:“(Like FDA, during the 2nd phase of clinical trials they found the data to be, real, real one, and they gave him the ok to go for 3rd phase of clinical trials, but just to go through this process you would probably need $100,000)”
Oh, wait !!
Dr. Adamson, when you say “snake oil”, I take it you are referring to the low-dose chemotherapy that Burzynski uses ?
Dr. Adamson, do you know what a “hack” is ?
In regards to the Merritt’s, the article has:
—————————————————————— “The couple say that Burzynski misled them about the type of treatment that would be offered, as well as the cost”
My questions about the Merritt’s are:
1. Where is their complaint to the Texas Medical Board ?
2. Where is their lawsuit ? Couldn’t they find an attorney to take their case pro bono ?
The article continues:
—————————————————————— “Yet even Jaffe has acknowledged that the trial — now in its 17th year — was more about politics than science”
“In his 2008 memoirs, Galileo’s Lawyer, Jaffe called it “a joke.””
“”It was all an artifice, a vehicle we and the FDA created to legally give the patients Burzynski’s treatment,” Jaffe said“
What Liz Szabo and her friends at USA TODAY fail to let the readers know, is that this only applied to one trial:
—————————————————————— Burzynski’s lawyer is obviously referring to the CAN-1 clinical trial mentioned in Burzynski’s 11/25/1997 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing 
—————————————————————— 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
—————————————————————— 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 , which requires that if the 1st 20 patients meet certain criteria, 20 additional patients are added 
—————————————————————— “Well, we cannot publish until the time is right” (laughs)
“If you would like to publish the results of, of a 10 year survival, for instance”
“Which we have
Nobody has over 10 year survival in malignant brain tumor, but we do, and if you like to do it right, it takes time to prepare it, and that’s what we do now
What we publish so far
We publish numerous, uh, publications which were, interim reports when we are still continuing clinical trials
Now we are preparing, a number of publications for final reports“
Then Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition makes an outlandish statement, which is quoted in the article:
—————————————————————— “Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, describes the FDA’s tolerance of Burzynski as “outrageous.””
“They have put people at risk for a long time,” says Visco, an attorney and breast cancer survivor”
“That’s completely unacceptable”
“How can anyone look at these facts and believe that there is a real clinical trial going on … rather than just using the FDA and the clinical trial system to make money?”
I have a suggestion for Ms. Visco
Take your hypocrisy and ask the American Cancer Society if they are still engaged in this kind of activity:
1.AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY: More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives 
2.National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest 
Then, ask the American Cancer Society, why is it that 10 years ago, estimated breast cancer deaths were expected to be 39,800 (15%), and this year it was 39,620 (14%), which is ONLY 180 LESS than 10 years ago ?
—————————————————————— Estimated Breast Cancer Deaths (Women)-USA
—————————————————————— 2013☝39,620 (14%)
2009👇40,170 (15%) 2008☝40,480 (15%)
2007👇40,460 (15%) 2006☝40,970 (15%)
2005👇40,410 (15%) 2004☝40,110 (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
—————————————————————— 2013☝232,340 (29%)
2012👇226,870 (29%) 2011☝238,480 (30%)
2007👇178,480 (26%) 2006☝212,920 (31%)
2005👇211,240 (32%) 2004☝215,900 (32%)
—————————————————————– American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures (2002-2013)
And after that, ask Susan G. Komen how much is spent on legal action to protect her brand, compared to how much is spent on breast cancer research and prevention ?
—————————————————————— Visco, the breast cancer advocate
“I do NOT know why it took YOU so long.”
The article continues with:
—————————————————————— “Yet hypernatremia is one of antineoplastons’ most common side effects, known to doctors for two decades”
Yet, “The Skeptics™” refuse to discuss:
—————————————————————— 2/13/2013 – The frequency, cost, and clinical outcomes of hypernatremia in patients hospitalized to a comprehensive cancer center
Over 3 month period in 2006 re 3,446 patients, most of the hypernatremia (90 %) was acquired during hospital stay 
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 
Department of Pediatrics, Texas Children’s Hospital, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
So, after all that, my question for USA TODAY is, does Liz Szabo, Michael Stravato, Jerry Mosemak or Robert Hanashiro have a journalism degree ?
Because if any of them do, the institution they obtained it from most be so proud of this piece of “fish wrap” you produced
Thank you, USA TODAY, for censoring my 18 comments
I guess you must be (“intellectual”) cowards
At least Forbes had the GRAPEFRUITS to post some of my comments
—————————————————————— You’ve just been served, INSOLENTLY
—————————————————————— USA TODAY, GONE TOMORROW
“In 1971, the ACS(American Cancer Society) aggressively campaigned President Nixon to declare the “War on Cancer,” claiming that this could be won, given increased funding for the National Cancer Institute (NCI)“
“President Nixon responded by increasing its funding by $200,000”
“This was in excess of the funding that it then received as one of 30 other National Institutes of Health”
“In so doing, President Nixon effectively created an independent status for the NCI“
—————————————————————— American Cancer Society
—————————————————————— Cancer Facts & Figures 2002-2013
—————————————————————— Expected New Cancer Cases – USA
—————————————————————— 2013☝1,660,290 – (21,380 more than 2012)
2012☝1,638,910 – (42,240 more than 2011)
2011☝1,596,670 – (67,160 more than 2010)
2010☝1,529,560 – (49,810 more than 2009)
2009☝1,479,350 – (42,170 more than 2008)
2008👇1,437,180 – ( 7,740 less than 2007) 2007☝1,444,920 – (45,130 more than 2006)
2006☝1,399,790 – (26,880 more than 2005)
2005☝1,372,910 – ( 4,870 more than 2004)
2004☝1,368,030 – (33,930 more than 2003)
2003☝1,334,100 – (49,200 more than 2002)
2002 – 1,284,900
—————————————————————— Expected to Die – United States
—————————————————————— 2013☝580,350_-_(3,160 more than 2012)
2012☝577,190_-_(5,240 more than 2011)
2011☝571,950_-_(2,460 more than 2010)
2010☝569,490_-_(7,150 more than 2009)
2009👇562,340_-_(3,310 less than 2008) 2008☝565,650_-_(6,000 more than 2007)
2007👇559,650_-_(5,180 less than 2006)
2006👇564,830_-_(5,450 less than 2005) 2005☝570,280_-_(6,580 more than 2004
2004☝563,700_-_(7,200 more than 2003)
2003☝556,500_-_(6,000 more than 2002)
—————————————————————— Deaths – United States of America
—————————————————————— 2013 – almost 1,600 a day
2012 – 1,500+ a day
2011 – 1,500+ a day
2010 – 1,500+ a day
2009 – 1,500+ a day
2008 – 1,500+ a day
2007 – 1,500+ a day
2006 – 1,500+ a day
2005 – 1,500+ a day
2004 – 1,500+ a day
2003 – 1,500+ a day
====================================== Estimated Childhood Cancer Deaths (0-14 years)
2013👇1, 310 2012☝1,340
2002 – 1,400
—————————————————————— Estimated New Childhood Cancer (0-14 years)
2010👇10,700 2009 – 10,730
2003👇9,000 2002 – 9,100
====================================== Estimated Brain and other nervous system Cancer Deaths (Women)
—————————————————————— 2013☝6,150 (2%)
2011👇5,670 (2%) 2010☝5,720 (2%)
2009👇5,590 (2%) 2008☝5,650 (2%)
2003👇5,800 (2%) 2002 – 5,900 (2%)
====================================== Estimated All Cancer Deaths (Women)
2013👇273,430 (100%) 2012☝275,370 (100%)
2009👇269800 (100%) 2008☝271,530 (100%)
2006👇273,560 (100%) 2005☝275,000 (100%)
—————————————————————— Estimated Lung and bronchus Cancer Deaths (Women)
2013👇72,220 (26%) 2012☝72,590 (26%)
2009👇70,490 (26%) 2008☝71,030 (26%)
2006👇72,130 (26%) 2005☝73,020 (27%)
2004👇68,510 (25%) 2003☝68,800 (25%)
2002 – 65,700 (25%)
—————————————————————— Estimated Breast Cancer Deaths (Women)
—————————————————————— 2013☝39,620 (14%)
2009👇40,170 (15%) 2008☝40,480 (15%)
2007👇40,460 (15%) 2006☝40,970 (15%)
2005👇40,410 (15%) 2004☝40,110 (15%)
2002 – 39,600 (15%)
—————————————————————— Estimated Colon and rectum Cancer Deaths (Women)
2013👇24,530 (9%) 2012☝25,220 (9%)
2004👇28,410 (10%) 2003 – 28,800 (11%)
2002 – 28,800 (11%)
—————————————————————— Estimated Pancreas Cancer Deaths (Women)
—————————————————————— 2013☝18,970 (7%)
2002 – 15,200 (16%)
—————————————————————— Estimated Ovary Cancer Deaths (Women)
2013👇14,030 (5%) 2012☝15,500 (6%)
2009👇14,600 (5%) 2008☝15,520 (6%)
2006👇15,310 (6%) 2005☝16,210 (6%)
2002 – 13,900 (5%)
—————————————————————— Estimated Leukemia Deaths (Women)
—————————————————————— 2013☝10,060 (4%)
2010👇9,180 (3%) 2009☝9,280 (3%)
2005👇10,030 (4%) 2004☝10,310 (4%)
2002 – 9,600 (4%)
—————————————————————— Estimated Non-Hodgkin lymphoma Deaths (Women)
2012👇8,620 (3%) 2011☝9,570 (4%)
2010👇9,500 (4%) 2009☝9,670 (4%)
2006👇8,840 (3%) 2005☝9,050 (3%)
2003👇11,200 (4%) 2002 – 11,700 (4%)
—————————————————————— Estimated Uterine corpus Cancer Deaths (Women)
—————————————————————— 2013☝8,190 (3%)
2012👇8,010 (3%) 2011☝8,120 (3%)
2002 – 6,600 (2%)
—————————————————————— Estimated Liver and intrahepatic bile duct Cancer Deaths (Women)
—————————————————————— 2013☝6,780 (2%)
2007 – 5,500 (2%)
—————————————————————— Estimated Multiple myeloma Cancer Deaths (Women)
2006👇5,630 (2%) 2005 – 5,640 (2%)
2002 – 5,300 (2%)
====================================== Estimated New Cancer All (Women)
—————————————————————— 2013☝805,500 (100%)
2007👇678,060 (100%) 2006☝679,510 (100%)
2005👇662,870 (100%) 2004☝668,470 (100%)
—————————————————————— Estimated New Breast Cancer (Women)
—————————————————————— 2013☝232,340 (29%)
2012👇226,870 (29%) 2011☝238,480 (30%)
2007👇178,480 (26%) 2006☝212,920 (31%)
2005👇211,240 (32%) 2004☝215,900 (32%)
—————————————————————— Estimated New Lung and bronchus Cancer (Women)
—————————————————————— 2013☝110,110 (14%)
2005👇79,560 (12%) 2004☝80,660 (12%)
2002 – 79,200 (12%)
—————————————————————— Estimated New Colon and rectum Cancer (Women)
2013👇69,140 (9%) 2012☝70,040 (9%)
2007👇74,630 (11%) 2006☝75,810 (11%)
2003👇74,700 (11%) 2002 – 75,700 (12%)
—————————————————————— Estimated New Uterine corpus Cancer (Women)
—————————————————————— 2013☝49,560 (6%)
2007👇39,080 (6%) 2006☝41,200 (6%)
2004👇40,320 (6%) 2003☝41,00 (6%)
2002 – 39,300 (6%)
—————————————————————— Estimated New Thyroid Cancer (Women)
—————————————————————— 2013☝45,310 (6%)
2009👇27,200 (4%) 2008☝28,410 (4%)
2002 – 15,800 (2%)
—————————————————————— Estimated New Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (Women)
—————————————————————— 2013☝32,140 (4%)
2009👇29,990 (4%) 2008☝30,660 (4%)
2003👇25,100 (4%) 2002 – 25,700 (4%)
—————————————————————— Estimated New Melanoma of the skin Cancer (Women)
2013👇31,630 (4%) 2012☝32,000 (4%)
2010👇29,260 (4%) 2009☝29,640 (4%)
2007👇26,030 (4%) 2006☝27,930 (4%)
2002 – 23,500 (4%)
—————————————————————— Estimated New Kidney and renal pelvis Cancer (Women)
—————————————————————— 2013☝24,720 (3%)
2007 – 19,600 (3%)
—————————————————————— Estimated New Pancreas Cancer (Women)
—————————————————————— 2013☝22,489 (3%)
2012👇21,830 (3%) 2011☝21,980 (3%)
2009 21,420 (3%)
2005👇16,080 (2%) 2004☝16,120 (2%)
2002 – 15,600 (2%)
—————————————————————— Estimated New Ovary Cancer (Women)
2013👇22,240 (3%) 2012☝22,280 (3%)
2008👇21,650 (3%) 2007☝22,430 (3%)
2005👇22,220 (3%) 2004☝25,580 (4%)
2002 – 23,300 (4%)
—————————————————————— Estimated New Leukemia (Women)
2008👇19,090 (3%) 2007 – 19,440 (3%)
—————————————————————— Estimated New Urinary bladder Cancer (Women)
2007 2006☝16,730 (2%)
2003 – 15,200 (2%)
2002 – 15,200 (2%)
====================================== Estimated All Cancer Deaths (Men)
—————————————————————— 2013☝306,920 (100%)
2009👇292,540 (100%) 2008☝294,120 (100%)
2006👇291,270 (100%) 2005☝295,280 (100%)
2003👇285,900 (100%) 2002_-_288,200 (100%)
—————————————————————— Estimated Lung and bronchus Deaths (Men)
2013👇87,260 (28%) 2012☝87,750 (29%)
2009👇88,900 (30%) 2008☝98,810 (31%)
2005👇90,490 (31%) 2004☝91,930 (32%)
2003👇88,400 (31%) 2002 – 89,200 (31%)
—————————————————————— Estimated Prostate Cancer Deaths (Men)
—————————————————————— 2013☝29,720 (10%)
2012👇28,170 (9%) 2011☝33,720 (11%)
2009👇27,360 (9%) 2008☝28,660 (10%)
2006👇27,350 (9%) 2005☝30,350 (10%)
2003👇28,900 (10%) 2002 – 30,200 (11%)
—————————————————————— Estimated Colon and rectum Cancer Deaths (Men)
2013👇26,300 (9%) 2012☝26,470 (9%)
2011👇25,250 (8%) 2010☝26,580 (9%)
2006👇27,870 (10%) 2005☝28,540 (10%)
2002 – 27,800 (10%)
—————————————————————— Estimated Pancreas Cancer Deaths (Men)
—————————————————————— 2013☝19,480 (6%)
2012👇18,850 (6%) 2011☝19,360 (3%)
2002 – 14,500 (5%)
—————————————————————— Estimated Liver and intrahepatic bile duct Cancer Deaths (Men)
—————————————————————— 2013☝14,890 (5%)
2009👇12,090 (4%) 2008☝12,570 (4%)
2002 – 8,900 (3%)
—————————————————————— Estimated Leukemia Deaths (Men)
—————————————————————— 2013☝13,660 (4%)
2005👇12,540 (4%) 2004☝12,990 (5%)
2003 – 12,100 (4%)
2002 – 12,100 (4%)
—————————————————————— Estimated Esophagus Cancer Deaths (Men)
—————————————————————— 2013☝12,220 (4%)
2002 – 9,600 (3%)
—————————————————————— Estimated Urinary bladder Cancer Deaths (Men)
—————————————————————— 2013☝10,820 (4%)
2012👇10,510 (3%) 2011☝10,670 (4%)
2003 – 8,600 (3%)
2002 – 8,600 (3%)
—————————————————————— Estimated Non-Hodgkin lymphoma Deaths (Men)
—————————————————————— 2013☝10,590 (3%)
2011👇9,750 (3%) 2010☝10,710 (4%)
2003👇12,200 (4%) 2002 – 12,700 (5%)
—————————————————————— Estimated Kidney and renal pelvis Cancer Deaths (Men)
—————————————————————— 2013☝8,780 (3%)
2007👇8,080 (3%) 2006☝8,130 (3%)
2002 – 7,200 (3%)
====================================== Estimated New Cancer All (Men)
—————————————————————— 2013☝854,790 (100%)
2008👇745,180 (100%) 2007☝766,860 (100%)
—————————————————————— Estimated New Prostate Cancer (Men)
2013👇238,590 (28%) 2012☝241,470 (29%)
2007👇218,890 (29%) 2006☝234,460 (33%)
—————————————————————— Estimated New Lung and bronchus Cancer (Men)
—————————————————————— 2013☝118,080 (14%)
2011👇115,060 (14%) 2010☝116,750 (15%)
2008👇114,690 (15%) 2007☝114,760 (15%)
2005👇93,010 (13%) 2004☝93,110 (13%)
2002 – 90,200 (14%)
—————————————————————— Estimated New Colon and rectum Cancer (Men)
—————————————————————— 2013☝73,680 (13%)
2008👇77,250 (10%) 2007☝79,130 (10%)
2005👇71,820 (10%) 2004☝73,620 (11%)
2002 – 72,600 (11%)
—————————————————————— Estimated New Urinary bladder Cancer (Men)
2013👇54,610 (6%) 2012☝55,600 (7%)
2010👇52,760 (7%) 2009☝52,810 (7%)
2006👇44,690 (6%) 2005☝47,010 (7%)
2002 – 41,500 (7%)
—————————————————————— Estimated New Melanoma of the skin Cancer (Men)
—————————————————————— 2013☝45,060 (5%)
2010👇38,870 (5%) 2009☝39,080 (5%)
2007👇33,910 (4%) 2006☝34,260 (5%)
2004 – 29,900 (4%)
2003👇29,900 (4%) 2002 – 30,100 (5%)
—————————————————————— Estimated New Kidney and renal pelvis Cancer (Men)
—————————————————————— 2013☝40,430 (5%)
2010👇35,370 (4%) 2009☝35,430 (5%)
2002 – 19,100 (3%)
—————————————————————— Estimated New Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (Men)
2013👇37,600 (4%) 2012☝38,160 (4%)
2010👇35,380 (4%) 2009☝35,990 (5%)
2002 – 28,200 (4%)
—————————————————————— Estimated New Oral cavity and pharynx Cancer (Men)
—————————————————————— 2013☝29,620 (3%)
2009👇25,240 (3%) 2008☝25,310 (3%)
2003👇18,200 (3%) 2002 – 18,900 (3%)
—————————————————————— Estimated New Leukemia (Men)
—————————————————————— 2013☝27,880 (3%)
2010👇24,690 (3%) 2009☝25,630 (3%)
2002 – 17,600 (3%)
—————————————————————— Estimated New Pancreas Cancer (Men)
—————————————————————— 2013☝22,740 (3%)
2008👇18,770 (3%) 2007☝18,830 (2%)
2002 – 14,700 (2%)
—————————————————————— American Cancer Society
—————————————————————— Cancer Facts & Figures
======================================  – AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY
More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives
Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.
Emeritus professor Environmental and Occupational Medicine
University of Illinois School of Public Health
Chairman, The Cancer Prevention Coalition
Anyone may post this interview to their website, as long as it remains
unaltered and freely available. Please place a link back to this webpage.
You may click here to download the PDF version of my interview and
save it to your computer. Please help distribute it. Thank you. Gavin.
Click here to download the free Adobe Reader if you do
not already have it on your computer.
This telephone interview with Dr. Burzynski was held in December 2002. The purpose of the interview is to inform people about Dr. Burzynski’s cancer treatment, Antineoplastons. It will be circulated for free on the Internet. I have no affiliations with Dr. Burzynski either personally or professionally.
Hello Dr. Burzynski. I would like to thank you for taking the time to inform people about your cancer treatment Antineoplastons, and your experiences in the area of cancer over the last 25 years.
Is it true that you were the youngest person in Poland in the 20th century to earn two advanced degrees, an M.D. (Medical Doctor) and Ph.D. in biochemistry at only 24?
I’m not sure if I was the youngest, I was among the youngest. In Poland, its 15 years average (Gavin. For a Ph.D.) after you receive an M.D.
What motivated you to come to the United States? When did you arrive here?
Well basically freedom. You see, I could easily stay in Poland. I was a prominent student, one of the best they ever had in medical school and certainly if I would become a member of the Communist Party I would accomplish a lot in Poland. But I didn’t want to be a Communist and after I declared, “forget it, I’m not going to be a Communist”, they persecuted me. So, practically, it would not be possible for me to do any research in Poland. I arrived in the United States on the 4th of September 1970.
You began working at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston?
I was not employed for 6 weeks, then I got the appointment at Baylor in the position of research assistant. A couple of years later I became Assistant Professor.
I have read that your cancer research was motivated by your observation of a cancer patient in Poland that was missing a particular peptide in their blood, is this correct?
Well Yes. First I discovered some peptide fractions in blood and then I was trying to determine their significance. This means that I was screening the blood samples from people who suffer from various illnesses, among them cancer patients. I found some remarkable changes in concentration of these Peptides in cancer patients. Basically there was a great deficiency of these Peptide fractions in the blood of cancer patients.
What are peptides and how did your research develop from there to developing Antineoplastons?
Peptides are chains of Amino Acids, so if you put together 2 Amino Acids, you have a Peptide.
You have said, “Cancer is really a disease of cells that are not programmed correctly. Antineoplastons simply reprogram them so that they behave normally again.”
They do, but we are not really interested in making normal cells out of cancer cells. What we are interested in is correcting one basic difference between cancer cells and normal cells, and this is the mortality of normal cells and the immortality of cancer cells. Cancer cells are immortal. And if you change them into mortal cells again they will die and the tumor will disappear.
I read a humorous part in Daniel Haley’s chapter about you in his book, “Politics in Medicine.” He says that initially you derived Antineoplastons from your friends blood, but had to change because your friends stopped coming around, is that correct?
Certainly it was difficult to obtain a lot of blood for the research. It was a necessity to look for a source that is widely available. I realized from the very beginning that once I use urine, my critics will use this against me; try to just smear me, “That’s the doctor who is using urine to treat cancer.” But there was no other way to do it.
There are plenty of ignorant remarks about your treatment because it used to be derived from human urine. The process you use now does not involve collecting human urine. Please describe the complete process you use.
Ever since 1980, we are using synthetic analogues of Antineoplastons, made in a state-of-the art biomedical manufacturing facility. These have nothing to do with urine or blood.
Would you describe Antineoplastons as natural?
They are natural of course, they exist in our body.
Your treatment does require a strong commitment from your patients as they must be infused with Antineoplastons for many weeks or months, is that correct?
But most of our patients are taking oral formulations. I would say that perhaps 15% of our patients are taking intravenous infusions of Antineoplastons; the rest take capsules or tablets.
The patients who have the most advanced type of cancer will require heavy dosages. There is a limitation of how much medicine you can take by mouth. Fifty or sixty tablets a day, that’s pretty much all you can take by mouth. But if you give intravenous infusion you can deliver the equivalent of 3,000 tablets a day.
You went into private practice in 1977. How was this funded?
Well, I started private practice in 1973. It was not necessary for me to have any funding, because I joined with other physicians.
Is it true that Dr. Mask at a hospital in Jacksboro, Texas ran your first human clinical trial? What types of cancers did you treat? What were the results of these trials?
I would not call it a clinical trial, because only two patients received initial treatment. They were very advanced, close to death and unfortunately, both of them died. But these cases were not lost because we found we can administer Antineoplastons without having bad side effects.
What is the general side effect experienced by your patients when using Antineoplastons? Does it damage the immune system as chemotherapy does?
We are not talking about one medicine; we tried 12 different pharmaceutical formulations. Basically it depends what formulation we use, but when we give them orally, we see practically no side effects at all. Patients may develop skin rash, which may last for a day or two.
But, when we give large dosages intravenously, we have to watch fluid balance…and electrolyte balance. We don’t see any delayed toxicity once the treatment stops. Everything practically goes back to normal within say a day or two. It does not even come close to the adverse reactions that you experience with chemotherapy.
What is the cost today for a patient using your treatment in a pill form and do insurance companies pay for it? *
Well basically, we do not charge patients for medicines, Antineoplastons are given free of charge. What we are charging for are supplies, and we are charging for standard services such as office visits, nursing services, Lab tests, consultation, evaluation etc. And these services are priced the same way as the average medical services, and they are covered by the insurance.
*(Gavin. Insurance companies will rarely pay for Antineoplastons, which is considered an experimental treatment. It also depends on the type of insurance plan someone may be on.)
So if a patient were using the pills, what would it normally cost per month.
About $2,000 a month.
Antineoplastons is most effective against brain cancer, is that correct?
Well, it’s not really correct. Because brain tumors are very difficult to treat, we concentrate our efforts on the toughest type of cancers. Out of our clinical trials, we have eight that came to the final point, which means they proved that there is some efficacy, and six of these are in various types of brain tumors. But there is another clinical trial, which deals with advanced colon cancer, which also proved efficacy and another one with liver cancer. But we still need to wait a little longer to have a larger number of patients treated and then statistically find out if this is going to work.
Basically the treatment works when we have involvement of the gene, which can be activated by Antineoplastons, and such genes, like gene p 53, are involved in 50% of all cancers. The treatment turns on gene p 53. So it has more to do with what kind of gene the patient has in his cancer cell, rather than the type of cancer.
Is there a special diet to follow when using your treatment?
Yes, since we are expecting there may be some changes in minerals, we usually emphasize a diet that is relatively low in sodium. We treat every patient individually. Every patient has a consultation with a dietary expert who tries to individualize his diet
Is your treatment being used in any other countries?
Yes, we have people coming to us from all over the world. I think we can probably count easily 70 to a 100 countries from which people are coming. But the main effort is now in Japan, outside the US. In Japan there are 2 clinical trials being conducted by Japanese doctors. Also, a group of doctors in Mexico obtained approval from the FDA and Mexican government to do clinical trials.
Now I have several related questions about brain cancer in children.
Dustin Kunnari and Dr. Burzynski. Dustin is one of Dr. Burzynski’s great success stories.
Dustin had brain surgery at 2 ½ years old. The surgery removed only 75% of the tumor.
Dustin’s parents, Mariann and Jack, were told that Dustin would only live for 6 months. Chemotherapy and radiation may extend Dustin’s life slightly, but at a very high cost in quality of life with very serious side effects.
Mariann and Jack decided to look into alternatives. They found out about Antineoplastons and after only 6 weeks of intravenous treatment, Dustin’s MRI showed he was cancer free.
One year later another tumor appeared on the MRI. By this time Dr. Burzynski had developed a more concentrated form of Antineoplastons. After 5 months the tumor was gone. Dustin has remained cancer free ever since and was taken off Antineoplastons when he was 7. Dustin is 12 today.
About how many children suffer from brain cancer in the US each year?
The statistics are available for 1999. The new cases of brain tumors in children were counted as 2,200. Now around 3,000, I would say.
Approximately what percentage of children is still alive after 5 years using orthodox treatments for brain cancer?
It depends on the type of tumor and it’s location, some of the toughest are those that are located in the brain stem. Up to 5 years, you have practically no survival when you use the best treatment available, which is radiation therapy. Chemotherapy usually doesn’t work for such patients. After 2 years, 7 % survival. After 5 years, practically none.
Dustin, after brain surgery.
To further complicate matters, Dustin’s oncologist kept threatening his parents with a court proceeding to take Dustin away and force him to take Chemotherapy/Radiation treatment.
This continued for a year, even after Dustin’s success with Antineoplastons.
You may also e-mail Mary Jo Siegel, the lady who runs the web site. Mary is also a cancer survivor using Antineoplastons.
Is it correct to say you have had very good results when treating brain cancer in children?
Yes we have. I gave you the example of the toughest, which is located in the brain stem. We get about 40% survival rates after two years. After 5 years at the moment we have about 20% survival rate. The reason is that most of the patients who come to us, have received prior heavy radiation therapy, or chemotherapy. They usually die from complications from these treatments. Those who survive the longest are patients who previously did not receive radiation therapy or chemotherapy. The longest survivor in this category is now reaching 15 years from the time of diagnosis; and she’s in perfect health.
With the more common variety, which is aciotoma located outside the brain stem, we get much, much better. We have 75% of patients who are objectively responding to the treatment. This means that the tumor will disappear completely or will be reduced by more than 50%.
This is another strong point. It’s extremely important. Children are usually damaged for life after radiation therapy, when we can avoid it and bring them back to life.
What criteria must parents of children with brain cancer meet before being able to have their children treated by you?
Well, practically all of these brain tumors must be inoperable. This means that it’s not possible to remove them with surgery. Except for one category, they should have advanced disease. The tumor should have the size of more than 5 mm in diameter and be located in a place that cannot be operated upon.
There is one category of these tumors, medulloblastoma, where the FDA requires that the patients would receive prior standard treatment and fail before we can accept them. In the rest of these children we can accept them without failure of prior treatment.
You may also e-mail Mary Jo Siegel, the lady who runs the web site. Mary is also a cancer survivor using Antineoplastons.
Let us talk a little about some of your most successful stories using Antineoplastons with children. Probably the most remarkable case is that of Tori Moreno . In August 1998 Tori was diagnosed with a stage 4 brainstem glioma that was inoperable. Her parents were told she would die in a few days or at the most, a few weeks. When did you start treating her?
Tori had Stage 4 brain stem glioma. The tumor was too risky for surgery. She was diagnosed shortly after her birth. The tumor was very large, about 3 inches in the largest diameter and located in the brain stem. Her parents consulted the best centers in the country and they were told there was nothing to be done. So finally she was brought to us, when she was about 3 ½ months old. This was in October 5 years ago. She was in such condition that we were afraid that she might die at any time. Fortunately she responded, and about 5 months later we determined that she obtained a complete response, which means complete disappearance of active tumor by
MRI criteria. She is a perfectly healthy child and tumor free. She still takes small dosages of capsules of Antineoplastons, but we will discontinue this shortly.
Tori Moreno 9.28.98. Temporarily enlarged due to taking Decadron.
Tori’s parents were told there was nothing that could be done for her and she would be dead in a few weeks.
Tori is alive and well today thanks to Antineoplastons. See photo below.
At the end of this interview, there is a short interview with Kim Moreno, Tori’s mother.
Kim Moreno has set-up a Yahoo e-mail account to answer peoples cancer related questions.
And today she is over 5 years old?
Yes, she’s 5 years old and living a pretty much normal life.
Tori 22.10.02. A perfectly healthy child. Orthodox treatment consists of high does of radiation therapy and possibly toxic chemotherapy as well. Most of the children are dead in a few years. The ones that survive suffer from permanent retardation, along with other serious side effects from the radiation.
Please do not forget about the interview with Kim Moreno, Tori’s mother, at the end of this interview.
But mainstream medicine has been trying to kill the cancer cell using chemotherapy and radiation, is that correct?
That’s right, yes.
Chemotherapy and radiation cannot differentiate between healthy and cancerous cells?
They can differentiate to some point, but basically, this difference is very small, so ultimately, the normal cells will be killed.
Is that why they have such a terrible effect on the immune system?
That’s right, not only the immune system, but also many other systems in the body. Practically, the treatment is destroying healthy parts of the body.
Chemotherapy and radiation also cause cancer, don’t they?
Yes. For instance right now we see a lot of patients who in childhood were successfully treated for leukemia or for Hodgkin’s disease. Then they develop cancer that is practically incurable, like lung cancer, breast cancers; I even encountered a patient in my practice that developed three different types of cancers, and was only 28 years of age. First she was treated for Hodgkin’s Disease, then she developed bone cancer in the places which were radiated for Hodgkin’s Disease, and then she developed breast cancer after that; it’s really horrible. So there is increased incidence of secondary cancers in patients who were treated previously with chemotherapy and radiation.
Shontelle Huron. In remission for several years after using Antineoplastons.
You may also e-mail Mary Jo Siegel, the lady who runs the web site. Mary is also a cancer survivor using Antineoplastons. firstname.lastname@example.org
Ric and Paula Schiff write about the torture their daughter Crystin had to endure during chemotherapy/radiation treatment.
Crystin was diagnosed with perhaps the most malignant tumor known, which is a rhabdoid tumor of the brain. Of course, historically, there was no case of such a tumor ever having a long response to chemotherapy or radiation therapy. She received extremely heavy does of radiation therapy and chemotherapy, because nobody expected that she would live longer than a year or so. So unfortunately she was terribly damaged with this. She responded very well to Antineoplastons. We put her in complete response. But unfortunately she died from pneumonia. Her immune system was wiped out, so when she aspirated some food, she died from it. The autopsy revealed that she didn’t have any sign of malignancy.
But there are also likely permanent severe health concerns related to taking chemotherapy and radiation.
In young children there is permanent damage to the brain. Unfortunately some oncologists who are dealing with such cases are really cruel to the parents, because they are saying, “well, your child will survive, but you are going to have a jolly idiot for the rest of your life.”
Is it true that if parents refuse chemotherapy/radiation treatment for their children the hospital, via the courts, could have the child removed from the parents care and forced to take chemotherapy/radiation treatment?
Yes, unfortunately in some States, the law may require taking children away from the custody of the parents to send them to such treatments.
Jared Wadman. In remission for several years after using Antineoplastons.
You may also e-mail Mary Jo Siegel, the lady who runs the web site. Mary is also a cancer survivor using Antineoplastons.
Isn’t this what happened to Donna and Jim Navarro when they chose your treatment over orthodox treatments?
That is correct. Thomas Navarro was diagnosed with medulloblastoma. He was operated on and the tumor was removed. Then he was scheduled for radiation therapy. Since he was only 4 years old, the parents knew that he’d be damaged by radiation therapy. Nobody at his age survives this type of tumor anyway after radiation therapy. So that’s why they decided to come to our clinic. Unfortunately I could not treat him because FDA requires failure of radiation therapy for such patients.
And tragically he died in November 2001.
What happened was, the parents decided not to take any treatment. We asked the FDA several times to allow administration of Antineoplastons, because we have already had successful treatments for some other children without any prior radiation. Then ultimately he developed numerous tumors in May the following year. Then we suggested to the parents of Thomas, that if they are not going to take our treatment, they should go for at least chemotherapy. They went for chemotherapy to one of the best centers in the country, to Beth Israel Hospital in New York. The chemotherapy was successful, but he almost died from it. It severely affected his bone marrow. I remember a phone call from Thomas’s father telling me that the doctors are thinking that they won’t do anything else for him and that Thomas will die within a week because of severe suppression of bone marrow.
But I encouraged his father to do whatever is possible because such patients may turn around. Fortunately he turned around, but about a month or two later he developed 15 tumors in the brain and the spinal cord. Then, when he was close to death, when nothing was available for him, the FDA called us and told us now we can treat Thomas. When we treated Thomas he survived 6 months, and the tumors had substantially decreased, but ultimately he died from pneumonia.
Is it accurate to say that the initial orthodox treatment for brain cancer is surgery to remove the tumor?
If the tumor is located in the proper part of the brain. For some locations it is out of the question. But, you are right, that is the first step.
Does surgery alone ever cure a patient with brain cancer?
Well, some cases, with benign brain tumors, when the tumor can be completely dissected, yes, it’s possible. But in most cases it’s not possible.
How much of a risk does surgery present regarding spreading the cancer more quickly and other complications?
Well, not so much regarding spreading the cancer more quickly in the case of brain tumors. Such a spread may happen only with a small percentage of brain tumors that have the highest aggressiveness. But for most of the patients the tumor is not going to spread just because of surgery. Certainly surgery may damage the brain and patients may even die during the surgery. It’s not the ideal thing to do of course because you are removing the tumor and you are removing a healthy part of the brain at the same time. The patient may be permanently damaged by such procedures.
Would you warn against rushing into surgery in light of how effective your treatment is? Would you most times recommend trying your treatment first?
We really would like to know what we are dealing with. This means that we would like to have at least a biopsy; if by chance it’s not going to create sufficient risk for the patient. If the tumor was located in such a place in the brain where surgery is possible, then certainly we could try to remove the tumor. But I think it would be best if we can treat the patient with brain intact and get rid of the tumor completely, because then we risk the least damage possible.
Now I will turn my attention to your legal battles with the FDA. They began in 1983 when they sued you in civil court, is this correct?
In 1983, that was the first court battle with the FDA. The FDA sued us. It took about 6 weeks in court and again, we won.
Then there was an enormous raid by the FDA at your offices on July 17, 1985. What was the reason for this raid?
We were never given a reason. I think there was a concentrated action against a few alternative medicine centers because at the same time there were similar actions in the Bahamas and in some other places.
In the four court cases the FDA has brought against you, have any of your patients testified against you?
Well, on their own will, nobody testified against us. But the FDA encouraged some of our patients, and threatened them in various ways. They forced them to come to the witness stand. But really, once they were on the witness stand they behaved more like our witnesses, not FDA witnesses.
According to Daniel Haley, after the FDA lost its last court case against you in 1997, Congressman Richard Burr said it was “one of the worst abuses of the criminal justice system”. Did Burr ever speak to you about it?
Yes, we talk with Congressman Burr. I believe he is right, because certainly there was no reason for such massive action on the part of the FDA. They knew that the treatment works; that the treatment helps patients, that the patients will die if they win, so they should not do it. All of this was with the taxpayer’s money.
So the FDA has wasted many millions of taxpayer dollars trying to convict you on false charges of transporting Antineoplastons across State lines. What was the motivation for this vendetta?
Well, it’s hard to tell, because it was never properly investigated; why they did it. But, we have some leads. For instance, on one side you have a large pharmaceutical company, which was very interested in getting hold of our patents; this is Elan Pharmaceutical. It happened that I treated successfully a close relative to the CEO of Elan. Elan became very interested in what we have. They came close to signing a final license agreement. But after they learned what we have, they decided to withdraw and then suddenly the FDA and NCI gave their full support to Elan, to do clinical trials with one of the ingredients of Antineoplastons, phenylacetate.
This was a large pharmaceutical company that was trying to appropriate my invention. On the other hand, within the FDA and NCI you have had people who were working closely with this company. For instance Mary Pendergast, who was responsible for the legal action against us, became Vice President of Elan. Also Doctor Michael Friedman, who was initially in charge of NCI cancer research, and who knew that our treatment works, later became commissioner of FDA and he did whatever he could to put us out of business. Not only that, but to simply destroy me.
On the other hand, suddenly the government decided to file for the patents, which claimed the same thing that our patents did. Never in the history of the United States do you have the issuance of two patents for the same invention. It was really a breach of patent procedure. The patent office allowed them to patent something I invented, and which I patented. And dishonest scientist Dr. Dvorit Samid, who initially worked for us, was receiving funds from us and finally went for the higher bidder (Elan).
So you have a lot of leads, which indicate that there was something between the government, dishonest scientists like Dvorit Samid and the large pharmaceutical company, Elan. And it was in best interests for them to get rid of me, destroy me, so they could appropriate my discoveries and benefit from that.
When did you initially apply for your Investigational New Drug (IND)?
We applied in May 1983.
When did you receive it?
Well, it took an extremely long time. Ultimately most of our clinical trials began in 1996, a long time after that. FDA did not allow us to proceed with clinical trials for an extremely long time. Please click here to read the
conclusion of this interview
E-mail this sites address to someone and help spread the word
You may also e-mail Mary Jo Siegel, the lady who runs the web site. Mary is also a cancer survivor using Antineoplastons.
It is important for everyone to understand the economics of the drug industry. I have heard that the cost today for bringing a drug to market is upwards of 500 million and takes about 12 years, is that true?
Yes, you’re right.
The drug company is then given a 17-year patent so that it can make a profit on the drug. It is little wonder the drug companies fight against natural treatments such as Laetrile, because they are unable to patent them and they pose a serious threat to their profit margins. But you are able to patent your treatment, so why was there no interest in it from the drug companies?
Basically you have 17 years from the time when you have approval of the patent and this is independent from FDA’s approval process. You file the patent, once you make a discovery, and then you go through FDA procedure. You spend say 12 years or 15 years for the approval process, then you have only 2 years license from the FDA, because license is going to expire in another 2 years. Certainly the pharmaceutical companies are spending a lot of money in this process.
In our case I decided to develop this on my own, to generate money from my private practice and use the money to support the research of Antineoplastons. Again we were approached by many different pharmaceutical companies, which were interested in working with us. Certainly after the bad experience (with Elan) we are very cautious with whom to deal. On the other hand pharmaceutical companies were afraid of action from the FDA.
The NCI put off testing Antineoplastons using the fact that it failed their standard P388 leukemia mouse test, is that correct?
What is the P388 leukemia mouse test and why did Antineoplastons fail it?
Well we had informed the NCI that this was a bad type of test for antineoplastons. Antineoplastons seems to be specific for species. Different animals have different antineoplastons; mice have a different composition of antineoplastons than humans. Practically, human antineoplastons may work well in humans, but they may not have much activity in mice. We knew this, even before the NCI began testing. On the other hand we didn’t have good results at all in the acute form of leukemia and we didn’t even accept such patients. It was known that if they only do this type of test, it was not going to work. They still tested and used this to say that Antineoplastons don’t work against cancer. Certainly the fact that something works or doesn’t work against mice leukemia is irrelevant.
I’d like the reader to bear with me in the next few questions, as the point will become clear. One of the chemicals you identified in the peptides was phenylacetate. But it was far inferior to the others and you chose not to patent it, is that correct?
This is not a peptide, this is a metabolite of our antineoplastons and it’s an organic acid. So this is a final metabolite of antineoplastons. It has some anti-cancer activity, but the weakest of all antineoplastons. We knew about it and that’s why after some preliminary experience in the treatment of phenylacetate back in 1980, we decided that it’s not worth pursuing this and then we used antineoplastons that have higher activity.
But didn’t you later find out that the NCI actually holds the patent for phenylacetate?
You’re right. NCI is the owner of the patent, Dr. Samid is the author but Elan has the license to use these patents. All of these three work together.
Why did the NCI patent something that was far inferior to your other Antineoplastons?
Because they knew that this was the only chance that they can get hold of something which has to do with antineoplastons.
The NCI ran clinical trials on phenylacetate in 1992 and found it to be worthless, is that correct?
Well, the clinical trials began in 1992 but it took a few years to have the results. It shows some effectiveness in brain tumors and in prostate cancer. But of course it was far away from the results that we can get with antineoplastons.
When did the NCI eventually start clinical trials of Antineoplastons?
I assume you gave the doctors running the trials all the information about correct dosages, is that true?
Yes, well, basically they used dosages that were 50 times lower than what we feel are effective dosages. We have some patient’s relatives who were present when the treatment was administered. Formulations of antineoplastons were badly diluted. This means that the patient was receiving very little antineoplastons and some of these patients were removed from the treatment after a short period of time because they were overloaded with fluid. Well normally we see fluid overload in perhaps less than 2% of our patients. So it makes sense that perhaps the formulations of antineoplastons were diluted and when the Mayo Clinic (1999) determined the concentration of antineoplastons in blood, we realize that it was something like 50 times lower than what it should be.
Do you think the NCI purposely sabotaged your trials?
I have no doubt about it. They sabotaged the trial; they accepted patients who were too advanced. Their main effort was to give a low dose of the medicine for a short period of time and to stop treatment just for some minor problem, like if a patient developed a skin rash. They were trying to give the treatment only for a very short period of time, like for instance a couple of weeks or a month. And then of course the patient was dying after that. It was completely unethical, it was horrible. As you probably heard recently, the pharmacist who was diluting an anti-cancer drug, was sentenced to 10 years in prison. I think the same should happen to these guys who really were trying to use this for their political manipulations.
Jessica Kerfoot. In remission for several years after using Antineoplastons.
You may also e-mail Mary Jo Siegel, the lady who runs the web site. Mary is also a cancer survivor using Antineoplastons.
How much influence do the pharmaceutical companies wield in medicine in the US?
Extreme influence. Most of the oncologists, I’m talking about reputable oncologists, they work for pharmaceutical companies, they work in clinical trials, they receive various type of incentives from pharmaceutical companies. And basically these doctors are approving medicine, FDA may approve the medicine, but finally this advisory board may advise FDA to go ahead with this or do not approve that medicine. So really the doctors who are deciding if the medicine should be approved or not, practically all of them have some type of relation with large pharmaceutical companies.
Is there a conspiracy to suppress other treatments or is it just a case of avaricious businesses, the pharmaceutical and hospital industry’s, doing everything in their power to protect their bottom line?
Well certainly they have a lot of power. When I filed my application for IND, the standard FDA policy was such that they would never approve a new drug for an individual owner, only for the large pharmaceutical companies. And that’s why I believe we waited for such a long time to receive the go-ahead for our clinical trial. So certainly there were obstruction tactics. Whether this is a conspiracy or not is hard for me to tell. As you can see, the leads which I presented, like for instance a researcher who worked for me initially and then decided to go to the higher bidder, which was a pharmaceutical company; then the relationship between the pharmaceutical company and governmental agencies. All of this indicates that there is some type of conspiracy. I think a Congressional committee should study this.
Turning our attention to the doctor/oncology profession. When reading Thomas Elias’s excellent book, “The Burzynski Breakthrough”, I was struck by how many times patients said that their oncologists were aggressively opposed to them taking your treatment.
Even after a patient’s success with your treatment, very few doctors give you the credit. Is this due to jealousy, arrogance, plain old denial or something else?
Probably a lot of arrogance. We have some prominent specialists, the best specialists in the world who really acknowledge our results and would like to work with us. On the other hand you have some doctors who hate to see a patient with success on our treatment. The fact that the patient is coming to their office, years after the patient should be dead, is something like a slap in the face. They hate it.
They will do everything they can to lie, to obstruct the information about this patient. We have a lot of evidence that oncologists were lying about the patient’s condition. For instance the patient recovered completely from highly malignant cancer and the oncologist was telling us the patient died from cancer. So certainly, we have a lot of evidence about some of these doctors who are dishonest, who are liars, who cheat. But on the other hand you can’t really put the same label on the entire profession. There are many other doctors who are honest and who like to know about what we have. Of course our clinic has board certified oncologists who are taking care of our patients.
I found an interesting quote by David Stewart, a philanthropist who helped fund Gaston Naessens cancer research in the 70’s. He says,
“I can say categorically that most scientific researchers with whom I have had to deal are highly opinionated, arrogant, condescending, and have built-in, insurmountable prejudices.”
Would you agree with these sentiments? What have your experiences been?
Well certainly, I think he’s right; unfortunately that’s the truth.
We spoke about Crystin Schiff briefly before. This is a particularly despicable story, because when Ric Schiff asked Dr. Michael Prados, then head of neuro-oncology at University of California at San Francisco Medical Center (UCSF), if he knew of any other treatment besides chemotherapy/radiation for Crystin’s brain tumor, Prados replied in the negative. But a few years before, he had sent you 14 letters documenting the effectiveness of Antineoplastons on Jeff Keller, another patient with brain cancer. Is this story true?
Yes, it’s true; of course Jeff Keller had an extremely malignant brain tumor. He had a high-grade glioma of the brain; he failed radiation therapy and additional treatments. He responded extremely well to our treatment. He was one of the patients whose case was presented to the NCI. So there was no doubt about his response. Dr. Prados knew about it. If he was dealing with a hopeless tumor like Crystin Schiff, why didn’t he call us?
Ryan and mother Cindy. Ryan is in remission for several years after using Antineoplastons.
You may also e-mail Mary Jo Siegel, the lady who runs the web site. Mary is also a cancer survivor using Antineoplastons.
Do you know why Prados did not tell them about Keller’s success with your treatment?
It’s hard for me to tell. It happens that Dr. Prados and Dr, Friedman, who became the boss of the FDA, came from the same medical school. So they work closely together, and perhaps there is something to do with the general action against us. It would be inconvenient for Dr. Prados to say that the treatment works if FDA was trying to get rid of us and when his friend was Commissioner of the FDA at that time. Perhaps that’s the connection….
One of your greatest critics is Saul Green (Ph.D. Biochemistry), a retired biochemist from Memorial Sloan Kettering. In 1992 the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), published Green’s article, “Antineoplastons: An Unproved Cancer Therapy.” What were his conclusions about Antineoplastons?
Well, Green is not a medical doctor, he’s a retired biochemist; he never reviewed our results. He got hold of some of our patents and that’s what he based his opinion on.
He was hired by another insurance company (Aetna) that was in litigation with us. He’s like a hired assassin. Not telling the truth. So really to argue with him is good for nothing. Even if something were completely clear he would negate it. He is simply a guy who was hired by our adversaries. He would do whatever they paid him to do.
Paul Leverett was diagnosed with a glioblastoma multiforme grade 4 brain stem tumor in May 1999. The prognosis was that he would probably be dead before the end of 1999. Orthodox medicine gave him no hope of survival.
Paul was given the maximum amount of radiation he was capable of receiving. It slowed the tumors growth slightly, but this did not alter Paul’s prospects for survival at all.
After completing some research on the Internet Paul learned about Dr. Burzynski’s Antineoplastons. Paul began taking Antineoplastons intravenously, administered by his wife, in September 1999. After 6 weeks Paul’s tumor had grown by only 2 %, Glioblastoma’s normally double in size every 2 weeks.
A PET scan in December 2000 confirmed that Paul was in complete remission. He stayed on Antineoplastons until August 2001 to ensure the tumor would not reoccur. There is just under 20% tumor necrosis remaining in his brain stem, which is probably scar tissue.
Paul’s oncologist (at MD Anderson, Houston) initially wanted to show his scan’s to his hospitals (MD Anderson) tumor review board. But then, for whaever reason, he refused further contact with Paul and did not go ahead with it.
The photo was taken with his wife Jennie. Paul had a web site created in order to inform people about his cancer experiences. http://www.dontevergiveup.com
Did Green ask to look at your patients’ files or even talk to any of your patients themselves?
You responded with an article with 137 references, did JAMA publish even part of it?
JAMA refused to publish the article. They decided that they would publish a short letter to the editors. And obviously this is another dirty thing, because letters to the editors are not in the reference books. If you look in the computer and try to find letters to the editor from JAMA, you’ll never find it. So people who are interested will always find Green’s article, but they will never find our reply to Green’s article, unless they go to the library. Then they can look in the JAMA volume in which the letter was published, and then they will find it. So many doctors were asking me why I did not respond to Saul Green’s article because they never found my letter to the editors.
Are they obligated to publish your rebuttal?
Certainly they are, because they put Green’s article in JAMA in the first place, they accepted it without any peer review and then they did not allow me to honestly respond to it. I should be allowed to publish my response to the article in JAMA.
At the time of the publication Green was working as a consultant to Grace Powers Monaco, Esq., a Washington attorney who was assisting Aetna insurance agency in its lawsuit against you. What was the Aetna lawsuit about?
One of our patients sued Aetna because Aetna refused to pay for my treatment. Then Aetna got involved and Aetna sued us. Aetna really became involved in what you can call racketeering tactics because they contacted practically every insurance company in the US. They smeared us, they advised insurance companies to not pay for our services. So based on all of this, our lawyer decided to file a racketeering suit against Aetna. This was a 190 million dollar lawsuit against Aetna. So certainly Aetna was trying to discredit us by using people like Saul Green. And they hired him to work on their behalf.
So there was an obvious conflict of interest for Green because he worked for Monaco who was assisting Aetna. Was this information published in the JAMA article?
Green also questions the fact that you have a Ph.D.. At the American Association for Clinical Chemistry Symposium, July 1997, Atlanta, GA., he says in part
“Burzynski’s claim to a Ph.D. is questionable. Letters from the Ministry of Health,
Warsaw, Poland, and from faculty at the Medical Academy at Lublin, Poland, say,
1. At the time Burzynski was in school, medical schools did not give a Ph.D.
2. Burzynski received the D.Msc. in 1968 after completing a one-year laboratory
project and passing an exam. (3) Burzynski did no independent research while in medical school.”
He cites the people below as giving him some of this information.
1. Nizanskowski, R. ,Personal communication. Jan 15, 1992.
3. Bielinski, S., Personal communication, Nov. 22, 1987
First of all, do you have a Ph.D.?
Well, the program in Poland is somewhat different than the US. What I have is equivalent to a US Ph.D. When a medical doctor in the US graduates from medical school, he receives a medical doctor diploma. In Poland it’s a similar diploma, but it’s called a physician diploma, which is equal to medical doctor. And after that, if you would like to obtain a Ph.D., you have to do independent research, both in the US and in Poland. So you have to work on an independent project, you have to write a doctorate thesis and, in addition, to that in Poland, you have to take exams in medicine, in philosophy and also you have to take exams in the subjects on which you have written your thesis, in my case this was biochemistry.
As you can see from the letter from the President of the medical school from which I graduated, this is a Ph.D..
Saul Green got information from the guys who were key communist figures in my medical school. The second secretary of the communist party in my school, hated my guts, because I didn’t want to be a communist. So, somehow, Green got hold of “reputable” communist sources (laugh) to give him that information. It is exactly the President of the medical school who certified that I have a Ph.D..
So you are saying that theses people he received his personal communication from, Nizanskowski R, and Bielinski S, are both Communists, is that correct, or they were?
Not only communists, but Bielinski was one of the key players in the communist party in my medical school. So certainly he was extremely active as a communist. And, you know that communists, they usually don’t tell the truth.
So there is absolutely no question about it, you have a Ph.D. and Green’s doubts are totally without foundation. Has he ever acknowledged publicly the fact that you have a Ph.D.?
He’s never got in touch with me regarding this.
There are some mainstream oncologists who have stated publicly that your treatment works such as Dr. Robert Burdick, oncologist and professor at the University of Washington Medical School.
He is one of the top experts in this field.
Dr. Burzynski, there are undoubtedly many people alive today solely because of your treatments, but there could be many hundreds or thousands more alive if the public was given free access to your treatment. Do you see this ever happening?
I see this happening within a few years. We already have 8 clinical trials that prove efficacy of the treatment. However, we still need to treat more patients, because in each of our clinical trials it is required that we treat 40 patients. If we are talking about 78 clinical trials, then the number of patients that need to be treated is about 3,000. We are moving forward, probably in another 2 to 3 years we will have final approval.
You may also e-mail Mary Jo Siegel, the lady who runs the web site. Mary is also a cancer survivor using Antineoplastons.
You have fought the government on behalf of your patients’ rights for over 25 years. There must have been a few times when you considered calling it quits. What has sustained you over the years and kept you fighting?
Well you see, basically the principle. Certainly I could practice just regular medicine and not
spend millions of dollars for the research, which I did. And I could go to some other country and practice. But I feel that this is my obligation because what I am doing is right. I’m saving peoples lives. So why should I give in to some mediocre characters, to liars, to people who really misrepresent what I do. And if I fail, then America will fail also. Because really America is the bastion of Democracy in the world. If America is rotten, then the whole world will go down to hell. So if something is rotten in the Patent office, in the NCI and FDA, it is the duty of the citizen to show that this is rotten and should be corrected.
There are a number of good people who can make it work, so why should bad people erode and destroy the entire system. I felt that this was my obligation; I felt that I was right and even if I had to go to prison, I would fight for it, because this is the right thing to do. Otherwise I could not look at myself in the mirror. I would despise myself.
Do you think we will we ever have medical freedom of choice in the US, where we can choose whatever treatment we want for cancer?
I am not sure if this will ever happen. But at least I am hoping that the movement, which we pioneered, like this alternative medicine movement, will bring a lot of good to the American people. After all, now you have official recognition of alternative treatment, more or less, and this is because of our fight. If we wouldn’t fight at that time, then perhaps it would not happen, but maybe it would happen another ten years from now.
Standard medical practices and the observations of physicians who are outside the medical establishment are extremely important, because anybody can make a discovery and improve the health of people. This I think is an important movement, but whether the people of America will ever have a chance to select whatever treatment they want, is another story.
Finally Dr. Burzynski, a hearty thanks to you for keeping your treatment available to cancer patients, for keeping your oath as a doctor and putting the patient ahead of financial gain, and of course, for saving lives. Please keep up the great work. Thank you for giving me the time to conduct this interview and inform people about your work and treatment.
End of interview.
Please be aware. Orthodox medicine often states that people who have recovered from cancer by unapproved methods did so due to a “spontaneous remission”. This means that the cancer just disappears for no apparent reason. First of all, I do not know of any documented cases of spontaneous remissions in brain cancer. In other serious cancers it is so rare as to be unworthy of discussion.
But here is the most crucial point. A true spontaneous remission is when the cancer goes away without any treatment, either approved or unapproved. It’s absurd to suggest that someone who received large amounts of Antineoplastons, and is then cancer free, had a spontaneous remission. If someone has surgery to remove a tumor and they are cancer free for years, we know it was because of the surgery.
Also remember that in many cases cancer patients turn to Antineoplastons (and other so-called alternatives) after chemotherapy and/or radiation have failed. If the patient goes into remission, oncologists often state that it was a delayed response to their treatment. This is a very convenient situation for oncologists. When their treatments fail, they still claim the credit for the patient’s recovery, even after the patient has been on Antineoplastons (or other treatments) for months/years.
Read about Dr. Burzynski’s treatment from the most important sources, the patients who had cancer and who are alive today because of Antineoplastons. The Burzynski Patients Web Site
Kim also has an e-mail account she specifically set-up for people to contact her about her experiences with Dr. Burzynski, oncologists, Antineoplastons and cancer treatments in general. Any e-mail unrelated to these subjects will be deleted.
While searching the Internet for links related to Koch’s glyoxylide, I found a recent article on Dr. Mercola’s web site related to a drug called Methylglyoxal (the lead ingredient, which is a metabolite in our body) that has been tested in India for over ten years. Please see, http://www.mercola.com/2001/jun/13/methylglyoxal.htm
Thank you for taking the time to inform people about your family’s experiences while your daughter Tori was taking Antineoplastons.
Tori was first diagnosed with a Stage 4 brain stem glioma in August 1998, is that correct?
What was the prognosis?
The doctor’s basically told us to take her home and prepare for her to die.
Were there any records of anyone surviving with this type of cancer, using orthodox treatments?
None that they could provide us with.
How many cancer centers did you visit?
We originally were at Miller’s Children at Long Beach Memorial and then went to City of Hope. We also sent her MRI’s to Dr. Fred Epstein in New York to be looked at.
And they all said the same thing, Tori’s brain cancer was fatal and nothing could be done? How long was she expected to live?
Yes, they all said there was nothing we could do. She was given 2-6 weeks to live.
How did you find out about Dr. Burzynski and Antineoplastons?
On the Internet on a brain tumor support group. We read a letter from a father whose daughter was on the treatment.
Did you ask your doctors about Burzynski? Had they heard of him or researched his treatment?
Yes, we asked all of them about it. Most frowned at the idea, the oncologist refused to see her if we took her to see Dr. Burzynski. The only one who told us that he thought Dr. B might have a good chance with helping us was Dr. Fred Epstein.
When did you first visit him?
In October 1998
Did he tell you he could cure Tori?
No. He said he thought Antineoplastons would help her, but he wasn’t sure he had enough time. He was very upfront and honest with the statistics he had with her type of cancer but offered no promises.
How much Antineoplastons was Tori taking?
I can’t even remember what dose she ended up on when she was taking it intravenously.
What were the side effects? In the photos you sent me, Tori is greatly enlarged, I assume due to fluid retention. Is that what it was? How was that alleviated? Were there any other side effects due to the Antineoplastons?
We always had to monitor her potassium and sodium. So, she had to drink a lot of water and therefore we went through a lot of diapers. Those were the worst of the side effects. In the picture, she was so large due to being on Decadron, which we were able to wean her off of in January 1999.
Were you surprised when Tori started responding?
Yes, I have to say I was. It is hard to believe something great is going to come out of something so painful. I guess she taught me not to lose faith in life.
How soon was it before Tori’s brain tumor started reducing in size?
Immediately. It had shrunk in size by 20% after the very first MRI, which I believe was in 6-8 weeks…it’s been a long time and a lot of MRI’s later.
For how long did Tori continue to take Antineoplastons intravenously? Did you administer this yourself at home?
She took them through IV for 2 years and yes; we did this all at home.
Does your insurance company pay for the treatment? Did they try to avoid paying for it?
No, they do not pay for the treatment.
I understand Tori is 5 today. Is she still taking Antineoplastons? Has the tumor completely gone?
Yes, she just turned five in June. She still takes Antineoplastons orally…. she takes 40 capsules a day. Her tumor has decreased in size by 86% and they believe what is left may be scar tissue.
Has Tori suffered any permanent side-side effects from Antineoplastons?
Not one. In fact, it decreased her symptoms dramatically and never caused her any harm.
So Tori is cancer free and side effect free today?
This is an incredible story Kim. Your child was diagnosed with a fatal brain cancer and the best oncologists and surgeons in America told you it was hopeless. Yet you found a cure for your child, without the billions, and so-called cancer specialists, that the NCI has at its disposal. Have any oncologists or doctors asked you about Dr. Burzynski’s treatment?
They tend to ask very quietly, but never really respond to what I have to tell them. There is curiosity there, just no one is really willing to step up to the plate and believe that the antineoplastons had something to do with her survival.
What do they say now that Tori is alive and well?
The neurologists told us that sometimes it happens and they called it “spontaneous remission”. Again, I asked them to provide some statistics and there were none to be seen.
That is of course the height of absurdity. To my knowledge, there has never been a documented case of any brain cancer going into spontaneous remission. Have you ever mentioned that to them?
Yes, again with no intelligent response.
So they are quite content to administer the same cancer causing, toxic treatments, when they know about your daughter’s success with Antineoplastons?
Absolutely. It amazes me that some of them can sleep at night.
Has your opinion about the medical profession, specifically cancer specialists, changed since Tori’s recovery? If it has, in what manner?
Yes, it has changed a lot. I guess the biggest change would be that I no longer sit back and believe anything a doctor tells m e and that we have to take our healthcare into our hands by searching for legitimate options. I believe we have the right to choose.
What do you think about the fact that some 3,000 children in the US (untold thousands worldwide) this year will be diagnosed with some form of brain cancer, and their families will have to face the same horror you did, the horror of losing a child. But virtually all of them will not be told about Antineoplastons, the treatment that cured Tori?
It really makes me sick to my stomach. That is why I want to talk to anyone who wants to listen about Tori’s Story
Finally, I commend you and your husband for finding a way to cure your daughter, when all the “experts” said it was hopeless. You gave her life when she was born, and then you saved her life by finding Antineoplastons.
I thank you once again Kim for answering my questions and sending me the photos of Tori. Give my best to your family.
Gavin Phillips opinion
Dr. Burzynski is a great rarity these days. He is a courageous man who risked everything battling the FDA for over 15 years so as to allow cancer patients access to his treatment. A doctor who puts his patients well being before financial gains. But how many people diagnosed with cancer this year will ever find out about Antineoplastons? A tiny percentage, because very few mainstream oncologists will inform their patients about a treatment that has yet to be approved. And why is that? The NCI and ACS have supposedly been searching for decades for any and all treatments that are effective against cancer. For over 15 years Dr. Burzynski’s treatment has shown that it is effective. Many cancer patients, including some very young children with supposedly hopeless brain cancers, are alive today because of Antineoplastons.
Here we come to the most crucial questions of all. Why did the FDA try their utmost to ruin Dr. Burzynski by involving him in 4 court cases? Why did the NCI make certain Burzynski’s clinical trials failed by diluting his treatment and enrolling patients who were the least likely to respond to Antineoplastons? If this was a one-time only event, we could dismiss it as an aberration; on overzealous government agencies. But the persecution of Dr. Burzynski is not an aberration, but the norm. There have been many well-documented cases in the last 70 some years of doctors/healers who discovered an effective cancer treatment, only to find the full force of the cancer agencies trying to destroy them and their discoveries. I have learned about several during my research. Dr. William Koch/Glyoxylide, Dr. Andrew Ivy/Krebiozen, Harry Hoxsey method/herbs, Royal Rife/radio waves, Ernst Krebs/ Laetrile/Amygdalin, Gaston Naessens/714 X, Dr. Lawrence Burton/Immuno-Augmentative Therapy, Dr. Max Gerson method/diet.
What, if anything, does Dr. Burzynski’s Antineoplastons have in common with these other treatments? Most of them are natural; all of them are inexpensive to produce, especially when compared to the enormous costs of conventional treatments. If cheap cancer treatments with virtually no side effects were allowed to freely compete with the cancer causing offerings of the pharmaceutical companies, the outcome is obvious. The pharmaceutical companies, and the hospitals that administer their drugs, will lose tens of billions in profits. And this I believe is the reason Dr. Burzynski, and the people who have gone before him, have been publicly vilified as “quacks” and their treatments discredited. The fact is that the pharmaceutical companies control American medicine, and they are only interested in treatments from which they can derive a profit.
Every cancer patient in America, and the world, should have free access to Antineoplastons. It is intolerable, not to mention totally un-American, to give a profit obsessed industry a monopoly over Americans healthcare. Nobody should have the right to force toxic chemicals down our family’s throat, especially when Dr. Burzynski’s treatment has proven effective (for some cancers) and does not have appalling side effects.
One point, in which I disagree with Burzynski about, is the possibility of medical freedom of choice happening in America. It would happen in a year or two if enough Americans demanded it. You can help make that a reality. Please forward this interview to as many people as you know, as well as media outlets. Around ten thousand Americans die every week from cancer; we simply must have medical freedom of choice. Thank you for your time.
Gavin Phillips. http://www.cancerinform.org
E-mail this sites address to someone and help spread the word
====================================== Pete talks with Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski
—————————————————————— December 2011 (1:02:30)
How did you kind of get into this, into this field in the 1st place ?
Uh well, it was a coincidence, ’cause obviously I made discovery of new chemicals, peptides which is in blood, and I noticed that they were deficient in patients with cancer, and there was a curiosity, why there was such deficiency, and I was interested what these peptides that I discovered, are doing in the body
So the connection with cancer was quite obvious
He, healthy people have abundance of these chemicals in blood Cancer patients have varied to none
So could be that cancer is another deficiency disease
So when you found this out
Yes. Mhmm ?
how did you feel ?
I mean, did you not just want to shout from the rooftops, and could you believe that you’d actually discovered something ?
Of course I was skeptical, and I found something that was interesting, but obviously, it was just the very beginning and when I shared this news uh with some other guys, who are obviously much older than me, who, other guys who were professors, who ever, so (laugh) they began to laugh so much they almost died from laughing
Wow, this guy would like to kill cancer
That’s just not going to happen
What are you doing ?
Yes sir (laugh)
Well how did that affect you ?
Well it didn’t affect me too much because I knew that uh the science uh requires uh some successes and uh setbacks and I felt, well I still would like to know, what these peptides can do, and I would like to know what they can do, not only regarding cancer but in various aspects of body function
For instance, the activity of the heart, the activity of the uh uh G.I. tract
I needed to expand this knowledge
Suddenly I found some like 119 new peptide fractions
Nobody ever heard of them
So I wanted to know
What do they do ?
And when I was in Poland I couldn’t have really do any further testing, because I didn’t have such possibility to require different group of people who would do the testing, and simply by working in the biochemistry laboratory I did not have such capacity, and obviously the budget for doing uh research was extremely small
Besides, I was continuously harassed by the communists and they were sending me to, eh, the military, so I couldn’t do much
I still did whatever I could
Then I came to U.S.
Oh so you came to U.S.
What, what year was that ?
It was 1970
I heard you came with not very much money in your pocket
Uh well it was better than where I came first to the U.K., because when I came first to U.K., I came practically with nothing, and uh, when I went to British uh Medical Student Association, they were going to give me 7 pounds for one month stay in U.K. (laughing)
You were supposed to get this money in Poland
(laughing) Sorry about that
So ultimately they decided to give me 7 pounds, and obviously at that time it was a lot of money, so with 7 pounds I was able to survive a month
(laughing) Good luck (laughing)
But in U.S., I was allowed by the communist government to $15, which again, was equivalent probably to 7 pounds, whatever (laughing)
So you came here with $15
I smuggled another 10
So the proper balance was like
So what did you do when you got here ?
Well, ehhh, when I arrived I was uh, uh, uh, trying to get ahold of my relatives
My uncle that lived in Bronx
And uh I officially came to visit him and uh I was expecting him to see me at the airport, and surely enough he came to the airport but uh at the time he was an elderly man
He was close to 80, and eh, he probably went to a different part of Kennedy airport, so he couldn’t find me
So I was stuck in the airport
This was Holiday
This was 4th of uh September, which was a Labor Day, and so I couldn’t get uh uh to his apartment
So finally I spent most of this money for the cab, the taxi rides to his apartment
Some, like $13 worth
You had $2 left
Plus the $10
Well, so then I stay uh I, I was obviously in the family’s, I couldn’t
I, I don’t need to worry about it
So obviously I had a food and lodging, and uh, still I was trying to get hold of some of the people whom I knew were doing the research in the area, whi, which I was interested
which was peptide research, and uh trying to see if I can advance my research
And then I thought, well, if I go back to Poland, I didn’t expect to stay
And in the meantime uh my job at the university in Poland was terminated, and I wondered they needed my position for the woman who was the wife of the 3rd Secretary of the communist party
Finally when I was terminated from my job, uh, there was no need for me to go back, because I would not be able to find job anywhere in Poland, because obviously everything was controlled by communist
So that I decided to stay and to look for the possible, possibility for me to find a job in the U.S.
And wha, what job did you find ?
So you were in New York ?
Yes, I was very active, of course since I was involved in the research
I knew the key people who were involved in peptide research
There were not many of them, but at least there was one good team in New York and Columbia
Um, there was another one at, uh, Cleveland Clinic, and there was another one in Houston, and so, uh, I check with all of them and, uh, the place in New York was unavailable because they hired, um, somebody, um, about a week before I came
Uh but uh, uh, I was invited to the interview to Houston
I was surprised but uh, prepared for my trip and I arrived to Houston and had interview with a professor at Baylor College of Medicine and he gave me the employment, and so it was relatively simple
And then what were you doing on like a day-to-day basis ?
Uh, well, uh, when I arrived to Houston I uh, obviously received a job
I received the job as “Research Associate,” and um, obviously this was associated with a reasonable salary, but the salary was paid once a month, so I had to think, what do I do for the 1st half of the month, because I came in the middle of the month, and didn’t have any money (laughing: both), but some good people loaned me some money so I, I have enough money to rent the apartment, and finally after I got my pay, I was able to do quite well, and I was able to advance, uh, in peptide research
So were you able to do your own research or
that they wanted you to do ?
Absolutely, and uh, I was quite lucky to join the team of the famous professor Professor George H
er, uh, who was initially professor of Sorbonne in Paris
Then in World War II he emigrated to U.K. and he was professor at Oxford, and so finally he came to U.S., and, uh, he put together the peptide research team
He needed people who know how to do analysis of peptides, so that’s why he hired me
And uh I uh told him that I have my own project, which is peptides, and if you wouldn’t mind that I do some research of mind, and he agreed
So basically this was gentleman agreement that I will spend 50% of my time working for him, and spend 50% time, working in my area
Uh, the equipment and the instruments were the same, so it wasn’t too difficult
And then you, and then when you had something to show then, when. when you had even more of something to show them, how was that received, because you see, I’ve really got something here ?
I think I’ve got something here
Absolutely, it was received with great curiosity, and, um, and obviously he needed people who could use, the cutting edge, uh, methods for peptide analysis, and that’s what I knew about, but I couldn’t use this for him because I didn’t have funds to do it, but I knew exactly what needs to be done, and on the other hand, uh, this was great surrounding because just across the corridor, another team receive a Nobel Prize for working on peptides
The only problem is, uh, one of these researchers uh was of Polish origin who received Nobel Prize for peptides (laughing)
began, uh, fighting with the other one and finally his job was terminated because he punched (laughing)
Punched him ?
the other guy in the nose (laughing)
So, but the good thing about it is that ultimately I inherited uh, their equipment
for peptide research, so
Wow. So that must have been like a, like, a, a child in a sweet shop
Absolutely, so was a great coincidence so
So then you were really able to, to, to, to look at it in more detail, and ?
Absolutely, so then of course I was really out of work uh, and the team of Dr. Unger, and also, uh, I was spending a lot of time, uh, progressing in my research, which was very important uh, of course it means long hours uh, ’cause of, uh, 8 hours I would spending working for Dr. Unger and probably not 8 hours until midnight working on my uh, project, but uh, I enjoy it
In the meantime I need to prepare for exams because I wanted to have a license
So I was lucky because uh, within 3 months I was able to pass exams to uh, to naturalize my diploma, and then uh, just, uh, the day, on the eve of my birthday, on January 22nd, President Nixon had a speech in which he promised American people that by 200th anniversary of America, they would have a cancer cure, and no limits would be set on the funding
So then I thought, well, if that’s the case, perhaps I should apply for the grant also, and I did
It was crazy idea because I could barely understand when the people were talking to me (laughing: both)
Well I decided to put together grant application, in to the National Cancer Institute, and include the project on the peptides which I discovered, and I was surprised when this was approved
So then in uh 1971 I get approved as Principle Investigator, to do the project, which included eh, the top people from M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, and from Baylor College of Medicine, um, and I was supervising this
I was at that time 28 years old, but I was supervising the guys who were famous, and who were some like 60 years old (laughing)
and so the money was coming to me from the National Cancer Institute, and I was uh daily uh, running the project, sharing, obviously with the guys from M.D. Anderson, so, and going ahead with the research, so
and of course at that time I was disappointed to have to (work ?) with M.D. Anderson and Baylor, and then I could move independently what I was doing
So at what point were you actually, able to start testing on people
It took a long time because
I mean you couldn’t wait, right ?
Yeah it took a long time because obviously um, initially you have to go through a lot of pre-clinical testing
The 1st time it was uh, around the beginning of ’77, yeah
So then we began phase I clinical trials, and this phase I clinical trials were approved by one of the very good hospitals in Houston, which is part of the hospital chain American Medical International, and they interviewed my project and their Institutional Review Board approved it for clinical trials
Well then I did my 1st clinical trials, phase I clinical trial, with a medication that I am not using at this moment because we made further progress of course, at a hospital, and this hospital at that time was called Twelve Oaks Hospital
At this time it’s called River Oak Hospital
And then, at what, at what, was there a time where you realized: This is actually working ?
Well, now this was in 1977, and (laughing) surprisingly, uh, uh, perhaps one of the 1st successful case where you can really, document a clear-cut improvement by doing the scan before and after
It shows tremendous decrease of uh, uh, tumors which corresponded to colon cancer which spread to the liver
(This guy was ?)
And uh, his case was so interesting, that when I sent it for press, the editors decided to put us on the cover, of the journal, the scan
They decided to put on the cover of Science, showing the tumor before, and, after the treatment
Eh, so this was uh , obviously
And then what happened ?
Didn’t that m kinda, didn’t word spread like wildfire and people, more and more people want to come and see you ?
Ah, Absolutely, well the 1st excitement occurred, basically what the President Nixon promised ok
That he would deliver
cancer cure uh, by ’70, uh 6, 1976, and we did, ok, and we did deliver cancer cure
by 1976, 1977 ok, and um, the um, main uh event was the presentation of uh our theory on our research, on perhaps one of the largest uh scientific (congress ? conference ?) in America, involved 19,000 uh, researchers attended
Eh this was annual meeting of the Federation of the Societies of Experimental Medicine and Biology
It happened that at that time it was in Anaheim, California
Uh, I sent uh, uh, the abstract of my presentation, and I was simply, patiently waiting until this would be shown, which was in ’76
In June ’76 right before 4th of July, and uh, I was surprised when they notified me that um, my abstract was selected out of one of few, which was in great interest of the news media, like Associated Press, for instance, and then when I did my presentation, then Associated Press decided to make a release of this, and then you can read about it in newspapers all over the world
In uh, (laughing) distant places like Buenos Aries, receiving CBS newspaper clips from all corners of the world
And what was that like for you ?
I mean, how did that feel, just to see that your name was, all over the world ?
This was the 2nd time, what (?) this happened to me, because 1st time it made such news, by working on brain peptides with Professor Unger; this was around ’72, and suddenly, this wasn’t so much of my
Yeah, but still it was your (interest ?)
involvement, but I was working together with Professor Unger, and we made a great news, by discovery of, certain peptide in the brain, and then it spread all over the world, and then again, uh, uh, CBS
What was that like ?
I mean, how did you feel when you saw ?
Well, uh, it was surprising because uh suddenly we got uh news people coming, and the TVs from various countries, especially from Europe, for instance, from variety of corners, like from Europe, from New Zealand, from Brazil
You name it ok ?
Eh, so there was a great excitement about it, but 1st time that this excitement happened was, is around ’72, uh, really, eh, is typically what happened after such excitement, is the ? iation ?)
Well, uh, (laughing) the uh, establishment is and this um will attack you and will try to destroy you
Did you know that was going to happen before ?
I knew it would because in Poland, uh, my father’s, uh, gave me the book of um MIT Professor, uh, Thomas Kuhn
(here’s a guy ? try to translate to (?)
and then uh, this was uh, the book which was titled eh, Structures of Scientific Revolutions
It happens that this book was translated to Polish language as couple of years after it was printed, in U.S.; which was around uh, I think 19 uh, 64 probably, ok
So then I read the book, and the book shows uh, how, eh, the paradigm shift occurs, ok, and the, it never fails
It always goes through the same stages
1st it’s short period of excitement, and the a long time of harassment and persecution, and then finally the brief period when uh, uh, if you survive, then uh, the other people say
well it’s obvious
We always knew (laughing) that this
was going to happen, ok ?
So I knew what was going to happen, uh, but uh, it was hard for me to believe it uh that, uh, in the 20th century, 21st century it could happen, ok, but then uh, when uh, I began going through this, it was like going to some uh, unpleasant disease
You read about it in the books and
then uh, you finding one symptom after another, and it affects you
and you know that it could be deadly,
Well you could have ended up in prison, right ?
You may die before uh, you be able to do anything
So the advice of the author of the book, was that you have to start early to make some medical discovery, because you probably have years of harassment in front of you, and probably the best chance that uh, you get accepted if you live longer than your opponent, because some guys will never accept you (laughing)
until they die
So that’s what happened
Well then, of course, I witnessed what happened with Professor Unger
Yeah, he made the great news, and obviously I contributed to what he had, but he was uh, my boss, and then obviously I did not much, suffer much from retaliation, but he did, ok
So there was retaliation, and uh, they accused him of everything possible, uh, finally causing for him to move from Houston to Memphis, Tennessee, eh, zzz, about year later he died
So unfortunately his research was never brought to the time when it was accepted, ok
It was great research, ok, and if had really to more resource and time I can bring this to be accepted, because this isn’t a completely different field
This is brain function, memory, and peptides working in the brain
But at that time unfortunately the project was killed, which is great loss for humanity, eh, ’cause the discoverer passed away, and the product was gone together with him
It can be still resurrected, and I think it will be
Eh, so then, for me, eh, it meant only advancement, unfortunately, because, uh, when uh, uh, he was stripped from the funds, I received funding from the National Cancer agency funding from the university, and I was able to support him, because he was stripped of his grants and funds
So he was able to move forward with his research, but finally when he moved, I inherited very large laboratories
My laboratory was located in 3 buildings
So the lab space and uh, uh, some prime location, in the medical school
So then I did very well, then, of course, the publicity occurred, and this publicity was centered around me, not around both of us
at that time, in ’76, and then again there was about 1/2 a year when there was a great enthusiasm, uh, good wishes, whatever, and after that, a retaliation occurred, ok
So then obviously
And what was, what, what was at the heart of the retaliation ?
The fact that their people didn’t want this to come to the fore ?
Initially there was some overtures to take away the discovery from me, and uh, for instance, uh, uh, uh, Baylor College congratulated me
I received diploma, so suddenly became superstar, ok (laughing)
and then, of course, uh, the wise people, the business people from the university said: “Look, probably we should talk now about patents, we should talk about pharmaceutical companies, we should try to, somehow, put this to motion,” ok, and that’s what we did
So then uh, we talked to some of the best lawyers in the country
Of course, uh, the university uh, are in control of this
There were visits of uh, pharmaceutical companies
I remember one of them came from the research center in U.K., from High uh, Wycombe , and this was so (encouraging that ?) was very interested, what we do
But then uh, the intention was just to take uh, my, uh, in, invention away from me, and obviously
I would have very little to, to, do to promote this, to develop this any further
So I thought about it and I felt that I’m not going to do it
There then uh, I was offered to join the mainstream cancer research at Baylor cancer medicine, and obviously uh, I would receive much better title, of professor
and obviously there would be much better equipped laboratory, but again eh, they wanted me to, completely quit private practice of medicine, ’cause at the same time I was practicing medicine, which many researchers were doing
I was working at Baylor College and then I was practicing medicine uh, outside Baylor College, in the group of the other doctors
So in this way I had some independence, because obviously, I could always practice medicine (laughing)
And did you always want to keep your independence,
and did you know that was always a good thing ?
That’s right, that’s right
Because I, I did not want to be uh, at the mercy of the university or the government
Uh, but I still wanted to stay in academic surrounding, because obviously I came from a family which has great tradition of academic careers
So that’s something which obviously my father was always telling me that I should be really staying in the university, ok
Eh, uh, uh, but finally I decided that I was not going to accept this offer because uh, why should I resign from my private practice
It didn’t hurt my research in any way
So I decided to continue, and uh, then that’s when the retaliation occurred, and uh, I was (crazy ?), harassed, and attacked, and finally
And how were you harassed ?
I mean, letters or (peop ?)
Mmm, well, as I could do the research for such a long time, because really, this was some like 7 years at the university, because uh, very few people in the university knew what I was doing, because I was only responding to the National Cancer Institute, and uh, I was not part of the mainstream cancer research center
What happened is that uh, (laugh) I was employed by the Department of Anesthesiology, which obviously, on the surface has nothing to do with cancer, but, who cares ?
I was receiving grants from the National Cancer Institute, and so Anethesiology was a very wealthy department, and they had a lot of space, but they were doing very little research
So they wanted to do some type of research, and uh, the chairman of the department was supportive of my doing cancer research
So basically I conducted uh, Anethesiology
laboratory into cancer, into cancer research laboratory, and very few people knew about it
They learn about it
when uh, the Associated Press (laughing) broke the news
So then uh, the retaliation happened
and then they wanted me to join the mainstream, but obviously I was enjoying very much (laughing) working, in peace and tranquility, and responding only to the National Cancer Institute
So then uh, what happened at that time was that uh, obviously Dr. Unger, moved to another university, and um, uh, the chairman of the department uh, his uh, uh, employment was terminated, because it uh, he was involved in uh, the war between 2 superstars of (the ?)
One of Dr. DeBakey
and the other one was Dr. Cooley
They were 2 famous, eh, eh, cardiovascular surgeons, who were competing with each other
Ehhh, Dr., eh, the chairman of the department, was on the side of Dr. Cooley, but the boss of, uh, Baylor College was Dr. DeBakey
So after Dr., Dr. DeBakey
learned that, uh, the sympathy of Chairman of the Department; which was Dr. Cooley, his job was terminated
So then they, took another man; very old, professor, who was already retired, to be the chairman of the department
They, he knew nothing about, any type of research (laugh), especially cancer research, and, uh, once I decided to not join the mainstream, Baylor Research Center, eh, the people who are in charge of Baylor Research Center, they put a pressure, on the new chairman of the department, and they frightened him, saying look, you are, uh, in a charge of anesthesiology, but here’s a guy doing cancer research, eh, and see this was a great, uh, like liability to you, and pretty soon he may be sued, uh, without knowing what he’s doing
So then, uh, they, they, um, brainwashed the old man, and he decided to strip me, slowly from my laboratories, eh, and, and, harass me
Ok, uh, ultimately, he sent me the letter that, uh, in which he informed me that he does not see any connection between, uh, my research and anesthesiology; which was obvious, eh, but obviously I was doing the research which made the university famous, more or less
So then one thing to another, and I decided, no, I am not going to work with, in this environment anymore, and I decided to do, try to do on my own, to start my own laboratory
So that’s what happened
And then you did that ?
You had your own, laboratory ?
Yes, and then I decided, this was just the beginning of 1977, and, uh, e, we put together a laboratory; of course I already had private practice, and, uh, I was still working
In your private practice
you were still seeing patients ?
Seeing any results ?
Yeah, seeing patients, getting results
I began phase I clinical trials
in the hospital where I was seeing patients
I had patients at that time, in about 2 or 3 different hospitals, uh, but the hospital, where I get permission to do clinical trials, was a most supportive, and that’s why I did it this way, and, uh, obviously it was necessary for me to build from scratch, the laboratory, the research laboratory
I decided that I just, uh, I just, uh, make some funds in, our private practice, and at that time, of course, this was just, um, general (?) private practice, internal medicine private practice, em, and, uh, the funds which I produced in private practice I can use to, put together the laboratory, and that’s what we did
Step by step we build the laboratory, and we expanded our private practice
So basically, I switch from the government and then I found it best to fund the research, just privately funded research, which nothing unusual, thhh, some like 50 years before everyone was doing it
Everyone is doing this
Yes, and there’s still some people, especially in the U.K., who are doing this
Um, the most of the discoveries were made through the, sss, through the research that was funded, by the researchers
There are also some, wealthy people who donated the money to do it
So only after World War II, this was, um, the system was created where, the researchers became, um, really became the slaves so, the government
and pharmaceutical companies, and new companies, and if they do not receive the money, they couldn’t do anything
This way I could have independence, and, uh, do whatever I want
So at what point did it get to where, action was taken against you, and you knew that you were going to have to go to court ?
The action, um, um, started very soon, and the, and began at the lowest level, which is like, county level, and then you go obviously
higher as you move along, and when, uh, I was leaving, uh, the university, the chairman promised me that (laugh) when I leave, uh, the obviously, quote, unquote, “They will bust my ass”
When leaving the university
When I was leaving the university ?
And, uh, he promised me that, uh, they will trigger the action from Harris County’s Medical Society; which is probably the lowest level of harassment and just, the somewhat prestigious society if you are are a good doctor practicing medicine, in Harris County, where Houston is, then you should be a member of the Harris County Medical Society
Uh, if you are not a member of Harris County Medical Socity they won’t grant you privileges to see patients in hospital
So this was important to be a member of the Harris County Medical Society because I was practicing medicine
Why do you think
Why do you think they wanted to stop you ?
Why did’d they wanted me to stop ?
Well, probably just for the heck of it
I don’t know
Well do you think they were threatened by you ?
Well, I doubt it
Their probably some type of revenge
Ehhh, since I didn’t yield to their harassment, and I decided to do whatever I was doing, and decide to do it on my own
and they felt, well, let’s try to kick his behind if we can
Well I don’t think I was, uh, causing any threat to them at all, because this was really, large institution
So it escalated ?
Just starting at the lowest level
It was, eh, unpleasant because they were dragging me to like, holy inquisition proceeding, explain what I was doing, and basically they’re trying to force me to stop what I was doing by using various ways
Obviously they didn’t have any, uh, reason to do it because, uh, my clinical research; which I was doing in the most, done under the supervision of, Institutional Review Board, and before I started anything I asked, uh, I retained medical lawyers, and I asked them to check, if I can, uh, for instance, do the research to use medicine, and use it, in a patient, and they
checked with this, State authorities, Federal authorities, and at that time it was perfectly alright
So I was doing, everything, legally
So, they really couldn’t do much, but, they were harassing me, asking for me to give them a lot of documents, whatever, and suddenly, all of it stopped
It stopped because they were exposed by news media
So, when the article was written about it, they disappeared from, the horizon, and then they never, harass me since then (laugh)
I think it’s, lasted probably for, 2 or 3 years, and then it was gone, so
And then, and then how did that end up ?
How did you end up going to court for the 1st time then ?
Oh well, so obviously there was no, uh, issue of going to court at that time, it was only the issue that, I might not be a member of, uh
But you might not have been able to practice medicine
the medical society, and then I would not be able to see patients in the hospital
So this was deliberate, ok, and at that time, m, most of my patients were treated in the hospital, because I didn’t have yet the system to use treatment outside the hospital, like for instance the pumps that we are using now
They did not exist at that time
So it was necessary to use I.V. posts
and, uh, and heavy pump, heavy treatment
So then, uh, so this was, uh, it started around ’78, it continued for a couple of years, and then nothing happened after that
I was visited by, um, FDA people, but we have pretty constructive meeting
They didn’t bother me, and, uh, the next attack occurred in a 1983, and this was by, uh, Food and Drug Administration
So, suddenly I was sued, and, um, they really wanted to put me out of business
They didn’t just want to put you out of business
I mean, they wanted you, they wanted you to go to prison
No, in ni, 1983, they wanted me out of business
Right, just out of business
Don’t want you practicing
Shut down, what I am doing, and they did it, secretly (laugh)
Most of this actions occurred around, uh, just before say Passover, and Easter
It never failed
Ok (laughing), a, and a usually they were attacking, uh, uh
For instance it happened for instance I was away, and, uh, they were filing papers in court, like, um, around 5 p.m. on Thursday, ok, and Friday was day off, because was big Friday, Good Friday
So then, obviously, um, they then
realized I’d be away because I participated in some T.V. program, and they want to do it while I was away, but, uh, it so happens that
a one of the friendly lawyers was in court at the time, and he overheard whatever they were doing, ok (laughing),they were going for injunction, ok, and so then, uh, I would be stopped immediately
I wouldn’t be able to do much, ok, until the judge would reverse it, but, uh, he read about it and he prepared immediately temporary restraining order, and filed at the same time (laughs)
So then, uh, I could practice without any interruptions, but, uh, then, of course,
So do you think of all the people that were trying to stop you
Do you think any of those people actually, really, genuinely believed that you were causing harm to people
or do you think that they were just stopping you because ?
I think some stupid people,was at the lower level, like, uh, uh, some lower level FDA agents, they didn’t know what they were doing
They were manipulated, ok, but the guys who above, they knew very well (laughs) that, I was right
They knew what they were doing
They knew you were doing something
They knew very well, and that’s the reason why they attack me
So this 1st encounter, was relatively brief
Uh, we went to court, which was Federal court, and the judge, uh, would rule in our favor, and the judge, uh, uh, in the verdict, uh, cleared me from any, of the charges, and, uh, I found that I could, uh, I could treat anybody, by using my methods, but I cannot really, uh, sell medications outside the State of Texas, and that’s what I was not doing anyway
affirmed what I was doing
That I’m free to use my invention, and treat people in the State of Texas, which made, of course, the government, uh, people furious, and they threatened the judge
They send the judge a letter saying that, if the judge will not rule their way, then they will go after me with criminal investigation, uh, with seizures, uh, eh, grand jury investigation
That’s what they did as the next step
When was the next step ?
How many years later was that ?
Well again, there was some like couple of years when it was relative quiet
Of course, in order to be, eh, in, eh, in order to do what I was doing, it was necessary for me to have inspection, by the inspectors, approved by the FDA, who
check our manufacturing facility, and, ah, certify that what ever we do, we do right, and there are no discrepancies
So this was obviously something, very difficult, because obviously we knew that the FDA inspectors
will always find something wrong, you know
So these agents are trained to always find something wrong, but anyway, at inspection, uh, found we are doing everything perfect
So we were able to pass the inspection
Uh, we are in full compliance with what is called good manufacturing practices, and then everything was quite until about 3 years later when, uh, there was a raid on our clinic by the FDA, and seizure of, ah, medical records, and then there was another, uh, obviously, ah, another, uh, part of the war began, and then, uh, we file a lawsuit against FDA, and, uh, as a result the judge forced the FDA to give back some, of the documents, and permit us to, uh, be able to copy the rest of the documents, and so then, uh, FDA began a grand jury process, and, uh, there was some, like 4 different grand juries, uh, ah, which did not find me, guilty of anything, and then finally 5th grand jury was able to indict me, which was in ’95
So when you were, when you were going to court; because I remember seeing in the
Burzynski, the movie
I remember seeing in the photographs
there were lots and lots of people outside there (?)
What was that like to see that ?
Oh well, ah, this was, uh, going for ever, going to court, and obviously I was going before this grand jury investigation, whatever, but ultimately, their lawsuit, uh, the trial began, in, ah, January of ’96, and, uh, it took a number of months
So I was going to court almost every day, and the people realized what was going on, and they were giving us a lot of support
So then you can see people outside the court
What was that like to see your patients ?
Well it was, ah, it was, ah, very good, uh, uh, show of (laughs)
They wanted obviously, to help us, and they knew that, uh, they have the power, and, uh, they knew that they were fighting for their lives
So they, uh, were dedicated people
It wasn’t easy because this was winter, and it was raining, and so it was cold weather, but obviously
Were you prepared to, to face what you could have faced, you know, that you actually could have gone to prison ?
I, I knew, but I was, convinced that I am going to win
So, should I, obviously, statistically it was, uh, highly unlikely, but, uh (laugh)
Do you think that this will stop one day ?
That people will just get off your back, and (laugh)
and can see what you’ve done
and, and see that there’s really something there
This is just the (?)
That’s what I was convinced was going, to happen, and, uh, I was convinced that we are going to win, with FDA
Good, ’cause I mean, anyone does any research
I had this on here
which I’m sure you’ve seen, like on Wikipedia
and what it says
That there’s no convincing evidence
that a randomized controlled trial has, you know
That your work, that, that there’s nothing there
What’s that like when you come across that stuff
Do you just not read it, and just
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
They’re against you, but you’ve been working with them for, for
Yes, so since 1997
Yes, but you see
Obviously they didn’t have any sympathy to us because they lost
So they would love to find something which is wrong with what we are doing
They would love to prove that the treatment doesn’t
So this is, very difficult
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)
Ok, so, we, we talked a little bit about, what you, where you’ve come from, and what you’ve been through
As far as your treatment, um, to cancer, and this I’m very interested in, and why you don’t think high doses of chemotherapy is, is particularly helpful for the body, and what
Well it is generally wrong approach
It can help, some patients, wi, with a rare form of cancer, but only, eh, in limited capacity
Those who, are quote, unquote “cured”, usually die later on from adverse reactions, of chronic adverse reactions from chemotherapy or radiation, or they develop secondary cancer
So certainly, there is, this is not such a cure which you have in mind, that, use the treatment, patient recovers and lives normal life
Such cure does not exist for patients who are taking chemotherapy or radiation
They will always suffer, some problems
Either from cancer, or radiation, chemotherapy, and there is only small minority of patients who have advanced cancer who can, have long term responses
So obviously, this is unacceptable treatment
Of course, it was important at certain stage of development, but now, of course, uh, when we know more about cancer, it’s becoming, uh, unacceptable, and I think it will disappear, from the surface of the earth, in another 10 years, or 15 years, and, uh, in the medical textbook, this will be described as strange period of time, when people were using some barbaric treatment
You have a number of different ways of treating cancer
So, one of them is the antineoplastons
This, this, this is the peptides
The, the this is the thing that my partner is on at the moment
in the clinical trial, and, uh, you’ve had some real great success
But you also have
another way, of, of, of treating, which is, using, it’s using some sort of chemotherapy, but in low doses
Well, um, um, whatever we are using we are using treatment which works on the genes
Antineoplastonswork on the genes, and they work on about 100 different genes
So what are they doing to the genes ?
Well, they work as molecular switches
They turn off the genes which are causing cancer, and turn on the genes which are fighting cancer
So, that’s what they do, and they produce this in about 100 different genes
It’s not enough, to control all cancer
Actually you can control some cancers, but not all of them, because you may have, numerous genes involved, in cancer
Well, for instance, in average case of breast cancer may have 50 abnormal genes involved
Uh, in, uh, like grade 3 brain tumors, for instance, anaplastic astrocytoma you might 80, or might be 100, but if, uh, you go to highly malignant tumors like, glioblastoma, you have, probably about 550
Eh, if you don’t cover such a spectrum of genes, you won’t, you’re not going to have good results
So that’s why, we know from the very beginning that we have some limitations
We can help some patients but not all of them, because, they have involvement of different genes which are causing, their cancer
So then you can still have these patients who are combining the treatmentof antineoplastons,with different medications which are in existence, which work on different genes, and this includes also some chemotherapy drugs, which are available
Eh, so this means that, um, for the patients for whom we, cannot use antineoplastons, because they are not in clinical trials, then we are using combination treatment, which consists of medication which already, approved as prescription medications, and, uh, by using the right combination by knowing which genes we need to attack, we get much better results
Now this also includes chemotherapy, but we never use, high-dose chemotherapy If necessary, we use low-dose chemotherapy, and when you use low-dose chemotherapy you don’t have, uh, toxicity, which is, bad
We use this for patients continuously, without much problem
So, so one of the main reasons of using low-dose chemotherapy is to try and keep your immune system strong, as well ?
No, to try to quickly decrease the size of the tumor, in combination with the other medications
We can use, for instance, low-dose chemotherapy and another medication which will increase activity,of chemotherapy, and as a result, you can have, as good, uh, uh, decrease of the tumor, with the low-doses
when you use heavy-dose
Well, there’s nothing unusual about it
For instance, uh, many doctors are using medications which are quite toxic
And they, if they use the dosages, it’s helpful to the patient
The question is, what dosage will you use ?
If you use the dosages which are not toxic, it may still help the results, for instance, eh, the medication which was introduced, in mid, uh, 18th century for a particle for heart failure, in U.K. by Dr. Withering, which was digitalis extract
Obviously it was highly toxic medication
It can kill people, in dosages much smaller than chemotherapy, but if you use the right dosage, it can help people
It was helping people for over 200 years
So those are the question
What kind of dosage do you use, and what combination do you use, and then, it can be useful
How did work that out then ?
I mean, how did you work out
that using small dosages of chemotherapy, could be effective ?
Uh, well, uh, it’s not only based on, uh, our research, it’s based on the research of the other, doctors
There are numerous publications on the subject, and in many cases the low-dosages can be used more effective than high-dosages, and, uh, on the other hand, by doing genetic testing, we can identify, which, uh, medications are the best for the patient
‘Cause you use
’cause you use a lab, in Phoenix
And, and how did you find out about them ?
Um, how did you ?
Well, uh, uh, frankly speaking (laughs), 1st time I find about it by, treating patients who’s referred to us by one of the best oncologists in the country
He was usually treating some movie stars (laughs)
and I found that this patient had, uh, genetic testing done, and I got interested in this, and I found about this laboratory
It was some time ago, but anyway, while we were doing genetic testing before, but, uh, we didn’t use this laboratory yet, we did it, through some other laboratories, and such testing was much, much simpler
So, we are using such testing, for a number of years, but in the capacity we are using now, this is really the last 2 to 3 years
So what happens is someone’s, bit of their tissue gets sent off to this lab ?
Yeah, the tissue is sent to the laboratory, and, uh, they do, testing on the entire genome of 24,000 genes
They identify the abnormal genes, and they go in-depth, by studying what happened to these genes?
Are they mutated ?
Are they amplified ?
And then from this, we have, a lot of information, and ultimately we like to know, which medications we can use to treat genes
What we are doing, we are treating genes, rather than, the tumor, as such
And, uh, if you identify all the genes that are involved, and find out which medications we can use, we can have very good results
And that’s what you found ?
So in some case you’re treating people that might have a certain type of cancer
with a drug that was designed for a different type of cancer
Uh, that’s right, because we are treating the genes, and, uh, if you find out that, this particular patient has, uh, an abnormal gene, which is not typical for this cancer but we have medication
that works on this gene, that’s what we use
So I would imagine that to treat, uh, that to treat people, this way, is obviously the future
Everyone’s genetics are d, d, different
genetic markers, but to treat them that way, would require a bit more work
That’s, uh, obviously (laughs) (a life’s ?) work
Uh, uh, we’ll, like, uh, not just simply for, eh, uh, 4 different types of lung cancer
Maybe 100,000 different types of lung cancer, each with, different, uh, genetic signature, ok, and once you identify this, then you can treat, such patients logically, and have good results, and if you do it on the scale of, uh, the entire country, this would, uh, give you much better results, and, uh, great savings, because
you won’t use expensive medications for everybody, but perhaps for 10% of the population, and then for this 10% of population is going to work
Which means that these people will avoid disability
They won’t spend time in the hospital
Uh, they will have short course of treatment, and then they go back to work
So the government would understand, uh, that’s something that can give them a lot of savings
I think they will go for it
Eh, gene testing, eh, at this time is still, uh, relatively expensive
It’s covered by, uh, the insurance of the United States, but for people outside, may cost 5500 euros, for instance, but I think it will be substantially less expensive in the near future
I think it will be below $1,000 for complete testing
So for running the test, uh, uh, eh, and, uh, finding out which treatment, has the best chance, you can save, 100’s of 1,000’s of dollars for individual patients
Yeah, but obviously pharmaceutical companies probably wouldn’t be too happy about that
People aren’t going to be taking their medications anymore
Well obviously be mostly happy that they can sell a lot of medications, but some of them are beginning to pay the attention, because they have to, because if they don’t, their competitors, will pay the attention
Obviously, they would like to have, possibly, the best possible results, in clinical trials, so now they begin to screen population of patients for clinical trials, and do some limited, genetic testing, but, so, of course, they do it, uh, for the better of clinical trials so have best results
Doesn’t mean that they’ll do, do it when they sell medicine, to millions of people commercially
They may forget about mentioning this medicine works the best for
this population of patient (laughs)
So what’s your, your vision ?
Wha, wha, what do you, striving to achieve ?
Well what I am trying to achieve is to introduce the way we treat patients, in, in various countries in the world, and, uh, what this would accomplish is, 1st of all, much better results of the treatment, much simpler treatment where perhaps only 1% of patient would need hospitalization, which would, uh, result in great savings
Uh, the treatment, uh, will be done for shorter period of time
For instance, few months to get rid of the tumors, then, uh, perhaps a year, to stabilize the results, and then go back, working and living, ok, without cancer
This, uh, genetic, genomic testing would be absolutely done for every patient who will come for treatment, to identify, what is the best treatment combination indication
So that’s what I would like to foresee, and then, of course, um, immediately, you substantially reduce, the expenditures for medical
For instance, if, you assume that in the mid, medium-sized country, will spend, for instance, a billion dollar, for, socialized medical treatment which will coincide with hospitalization
Uh, then, uh, most of the cost is for hospitalization, and services necessary for keeping the patient in hospital, then treating adverse reactions, which are, occurring because of the poor selection of medications
Eh, then if you switch to the outpatient treatment because you use medications which are not going to give such bad, side-effects, because you select this medication based on genomic testing, ok, and then immediately instead of a billion dollars a year, you cut down your expenditures to about $100,000
100 million dollars
Probably slash it 10 times
And then people will be happy because, ah, the don’t need to stay in the hospital for a long time
They have less adverse reactions
They can go to back to work, much sooner
So that’s what I, can foresee as, the treatmentin the future
Not really hospital-based treatment
for patients, and most hospitalization is required because of adverse reactions from chemotherapy, radiation, but outpatient treatment, much easier treatment, also medication given in tablet forms, for instince
And that’s what you’re doing here, right ?
Correct, yes correct
Usually in hospital, only, perhaps, for, one or two percent of patients, and, we would like to avoid it because when the patient goes to the hospital, he can pick up, some in-opportunistic infection, and then we are talking about more problem
Of course, I believe detection of cancer will be very important, because you don’t want to, uh, have a patient who is so advanced that he is fighting for, life, and he needs to be in the hospital
If you had diagnosis in the early stages, then the patient does not need hospitalization
He can be treated very easily, then go back to work
So that’s the issue
And of course prevention is another important issue to us
To identify, changes in the body, which may indicate that the patient has already, early stages of cancer, also based on genetic tests, and get rid of this by using, behavior modification, by using proper diet, by using supplements, whatever, even without any medications
So, you’re obviously very passionate about what you do
That, that’s my question about that
Well, I think it can help s, people in a great way, and, uh,
Well it can, I mean
You have had so many su
I mean, I was talking to my girlfriend
the other day,
I mean, people, you know, you hear people say, this is a scam, and I was thinking, well the, if it is a scam
it has to be one of the biggest scams ever
because all you’ve gotta do, is look on the walls
and you look at those photographs
Perhaps, this won’t surprise you
I’ve spoken to some oncologists just in the U.K., and they say, all of these people that you have helped, they either ever had cancer in the 1st place
or they were misdiagnosed
or, uh, they went into spontaneous remission
or they, it was the chemotherapy or radiation
These people, they don’t know what they do
They never, have never seen our results, and obviously they can’t believe that something like this could happen, but suddenly (laughs), in this room we are in now, we have some of
the top experts in the country, like people from FDA, who are expert oncologists, specialists
They’re working with you
Oh, they came here to inspect what we have
They look at every scan of the people who are in clinical trials, and they decided that we have very good results
And is that stuff going to be published at some point ?
Ah, yes, we are publi, we are preparing this for publication, but, uh, obviously, in order to have the right results, you need, time, and most of our clinical trials began, approximately 10 years ago
So then we, if you would like to know what happen after, 10 years with these people
then you need to have a little time
So now we are preparing a number of, uh, publications, uh, and so this year we should have a number of publications, which will show final results
So far we didn’t have, final results, so were only interim reports, during the course of clinical trials
And with, uh, with brain tumors; because obviously, that’s an area that you’ve had
huge suc, success rate
What, why has that, do you think, as opposed to the other, types ?
Because that’s where we selected
We wanted to have something difficult
Because, uh, for the same reason that you mentioned
If you’d had something easier then, the doctors could say: “Well, this cancer usually disappears in its own”
And they are right
Some cancers may disappear on its own, in some higher percent than the others
But you know, brain tumors, you read, they never disappear on their own
So that’s why we, decided to select such type of malignancies which are the most difficult
So what’s that been like when you’ve seen, I mean, I’ve seen obviously Jodi Fenton’s story
Whe, whe, when you see these people’s
and you see that that tumor has shrunk
or broken down
wha, what does that feel like ? (laughing)
Well, we see this all the time
(?) it just happens almost every day
Even today that we saw the patient, uh, who has pancreatic cancer, and after a few months of treatment it’s practically gone, and she is the wife of a doctor (laughs)
They came together, and that’s, that’s what we see practically every day
That must give you great strength to
So that’s something which is gratifying (laughs)
What do you think the future is as far as drugs for cancer are concerned ?
I believe that, we are still at a very early stages of development in this area, but the future will be, with medications which are, highly specific, they will work on the genes that are involved in cancer
So, they will not harm normal part of the body, and, du, du, how to combine this medications will be established by, the special software, which will guide the doctors how to use proper medication for individual patient
I think this will be the, um, treatment that will be designed for, individual patient, and such design, it is not necessary to be done by the doctor
I think it should be, uh, certain computerized system which will put together, the best possible treatment plan, for a patient; which obviously needs to be checked and approved by the doctor
So I believe that this will be the future of medicine for the next, say, 40, and 50 years, coming up with better and better medications, which will be genomic switches, which will turn off, the cancerous process by regulating the genes which are involved; they simply will bring, the activity of these genes to normal levels, and finally, the new generation of medication which should work on cancerous stem cells, and, the medications which can kill cancerous stem cells without, uh, producing any harm to normal stem cells
So this will be the clue for, long-term control of cancer, because if you don’t eliminate, cancerous stem cells then the cancer will come back
And that’s why chemotherapy, usually is unable to control cancer for a long time because, it’s pretty much powerless, ah, uh, regarding action on cancerous stem cells
But then after that, I think that we will make another, jump, and there will be, uh, procedures that will based on biophysics
and by trying to get rid of, uh, the cancer and some of the diseases by effecting the body by using various, uh, wipes, which will be like magnetic wipes, it will be some other types of wipes, but using proper frequencies to, normalize all the cells in the body to normalize the activity of the genes
I think this will be a
probably the next, uh, say 50 years of, uh, the end of this century when such (?)
So no one’s getting funding really, unless they’re doing it privately to,
being able to, isn’t that being able to research these areas, because funding really comes from pharmaceutical companies ?
Ah, well, most of this funding is from pharmaceutical companies, and also it is coming from the National Cancer Institute but, I think it’s regulated behind the scenes by the pharmaceutical companies
Eh, but they are still some researchers who are trying to do it on their own
Very few of them
I think there’s articles, in the Science magazine, some time ago which was talking about, uh, few of these researchers who are still trying to do, research on their own, and, I think, uh, I think there were probably some 4 or 5 of them in U.K. (laugh)
still involved in research on their own
So what ah, what about the role of the mind ?
Do you think that, if someone has cancer and they wanna be well, do you think the way that someone thinks is important ?
Absolutely, that’s very important because, this, uh, can be translated, ah, to various biochemicals which can influence cancer
So obviously this is very important but, the question is how to, ah, direct this in the proper way
How to quantify this
So that’s something that should be done in the future
And nutrition as well
Yes, absolutely, yes
Why all have a lot of important chemicals in nutrition which can effectuate cancer, but regarding the mind you have to translate, uh, for instance, biophysical factors, in the brain, into biochemical factors, and certainly, that’s what the body’s doing all the time, but how to mobilize it, that’s a different story
So if someone wants, if someone came to the Burzynski Clinic, wh, wh, what could they expect, to happen here?
Well 1st of all, we would like to give a selection, and we don’t want the people who we cannot treat to come
Uh, at this time we rather avoid, uh, patients in early stages of cancer, because with such patients, uh, what is used is standard of care treatment, and we prefer to refer them to, ah, different doctors
So we prefer to treat it once cancer patient, because, uh, they cannot be helped by the other doctors, and, uh, when they come to our clinic, we try to find out 1st, see if we can really help them or not, and, uh, once they come to the clinic, in most of the cases we can try to, help them, of course, and, uh, we put together, the personalized treatment plan, which is (?)
But all of those go through you
You look at every single one of those
I’m seeing every patient, who’s coming, if I’m
if I’m around here, but, after that all the patients are really assigned to different senior physician and they’re responsible for daily care of patient here
How many people do you have, working here now ?
About 150 people here, yes
And you started with, well, just one (?)
Eh, I think really when we moved from Baylor College I had about 7 people at that time
Yes, because, some of these doctors who are working together at Baylor College decided to leave together with me, including my wife, because she was also working at Baylor College
Thank you so much
Thank you very much