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
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Board of Directors MemberJames Rappaport discusses Dr. Burzynski and The Cancer Industry
—————————————————————— “When you look at what is going on and how Dr. Burzynski’s being handled, it is clearly a function of, (?), anytime you have big business, big government, big labor, Big Pharma, Big Cancer Industry, whatever, they become so, wrapped up in protecting the institution; whatever it is, that they forget what their fundamental job is, you know, and what’s happened with Big Pharma and, and Big Cancer, is they kinda, you know, they’ve forgotten to be curious that there might be other op, opportunities and options out there, and they’re focused on protecting their turf”
—————————————————————— 00:41 – Peer-review chauvinism
—————————————————————— “Most of the stuff is peer-reviewed, in order to get into, the starting gate, of their process”
“Well, if you’re all of the peers, are vested in one piece of the business, something new, is frightening, and is not going to be given the same shot, as something that’s within the construct of what they’re used to”
“That’s the problem, uh, and the idea that something different; less catastrophic to the body, um, could possibly, uh, work, would upset all of their training, all of their thinking, and, it, it’s very hard for them to, to to do that”
—————————————————————— 01:24 – The anointed Evangelical Guardians of the Status Quo
—————————————————————— “The doctors I know and, and the clinicians I know, and, and these people are evangelical”
“I mean, they are hugely, vested and invested, in doing what they believe is very important and good work”
“It helps them get up in the morning, to go to work”
“So, folks who are, invested that kind of, uh, you know, zealous way, you know, are going to look at anything that isn’t within that, that, that, that vision, you know, they’re going to look askance at it”
“They’re going to look at, say that, that, that’s really weird, or, that’s a charlatan”
“What they were in essence saying is, that if you do, the Burzynski treatment regimen, you are foregoing the treatments that we know and understand, and thus we can’t, guarantee that you’re going to have a success”
“Well, you can’t guarantee that you’re going to have a success with chemotherapy, or the normal regimens of chemotherapy“
“So, they came from a place of saying: ‘We are protecting you from going down and taking a, uh, the placebo approach,’ which is the way they look at it”
“The fact that it’s been effective, and the fact that, uh, you know, when you go through the numbers, uh, and the analysis, and you go through, uh, that if you’ve not gone through chemotherapy, and you go through the Burzynski’s treatment your odds are 2 or 3 times as high, even if you have gone through chemotherapy it’s 1 or 2 times as high”
“You know, those are, un, those are high enough numbers to push the needle, and, oh by the way, it’s less expensive, than Big Pharma“
—————————————————————— 02:56 – Protecting the business at all costs
—————————————————————— “Which is another big piece”
“Big Pharma is protecting a huge, multi-billion dollar business, and they’re going to protect it to the death, even, to the adverse impact of patient outcomes”
“They won’t say it that way, and, but that fact of the matter is, if you’ve got an approach out here which could be significantly, less costly, and significantly less adversely impact-full, to the patient, um, then you’re gonna, um, you, you, you can understand why they’re, to doing”
“You don’t have to agree with it, but you can at least understand why they’re taking the position that they’re taking”
—————————————————————— 03:34 – The fiber of an innovator’s background
—————————————————————— “I think that what is amazing is that Dr. Burzynski has had a vision, and a passion, and a zeal, for 40-odd years, put up with being called everything, short of, and probably even including ‘Witch Doctor,’ um, because of his firm belief that he can save people’s lives, and, and what that says about his character and his just his, the fiber of his backbone, to, um, to be willing to take that on”
“You know, you’re talking about a man who spent the last 40 years, um, you know, working on, on a different form of treatment that is more patient friendly, than chemotherapy“
“You know, I explain to people about, you know, what chemotherapy is”
“What chemotherapy is, is putting poison in your body”
“Killing everything that is fast-growing in your body”
“Starting first with cancer cells”
“Then next with white-blood cells”
“Then with your hair”
“Then with your, you know, the inside lining of your mouth”
“Um, then your fingernails”
“I mean, you know, that, that’s what it’s meant to do, and what you essentially do is you give this chemotherapy to, as much as a person can take, uh, uh, uh, in order to, you know, in, in, in order to get out the other end where’ve you’ve killed cancer and hopeful not everybody else or the patient”
“That’s what it is”
“So, if you’ve got a different approach, which is, essentially is saying, well, you know, we’re not, we’re gonna go in and stop the cancer cells from growing and we’re going to actually, and, uh and work on shrinking them, without the ancillary effects, is pretty powerful, you know, and, uh, and you would think that, that, that, the Big Cancer Industry would say: ‘That’s something we outta be looking at'”
Burzynski needs to be given the right to prove the efficacy of his treatment, and if he can, uh, show that his treatments are as or more effective, and / or, significantly better for the patient, with better patient outcomes and, and limited side effects, he’s gotta be given that opportunity to compete out in the marketplace”
“That’s what America’s about”
====================================== 12/4/2013 – Jim Rappaport, Board Member of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute discusses Dr. Burzynski and the obstacles he faces within a Cancer Ind (5:49)
——————————————————————
====================================== What Are the Costs of Cancer?
—————————————————————— National Institutes of Health(NIH) estimates:
—————————————————————— overall costs of cancer:
—————————————————————— 2010 – $263.8 billion (2011)
2010☝$263.8 billion (2010)
2008👇$201.5 billion (2013) 2008☝$228.1 billion (2009)
2007☝$226.8 billion (2012)
2007☝$219.2 billion (2008)
2006👇$206.3 billion (2007) 2005☝$209.9 billion (2006)
2004☝$189.8 billion (2005)
2003☝$189.5 billion (2004)
2002☝$171.6 billion (2003)
2001☝$156.7 billion (2002)
—————————————————————— direct medical costs
(total of all health expenditures)
—————————————————————— 2010 – $102.8 billion (2011)
2010☝$102.8 billion (2010)
2008👇$77.4 billion (2013)
2008👇$93.2 billion (2009) 2007☝$103.8 billion (2012)
2007☝$89.0 billion (2008)
2006☝$78.2 billion (2007)
2005☝$74.0 billion (2006)
2004☝$69.4 billion (2005)
2003☝$64.2 billion (2004)
2002☝$60.9 billion (2003)
2001☝$56.4 billion (2002)
—————————————————————— 2008-2011 – indirect morbidity costs
(cost of lost productivity due to illness)
—————————————————————— 2010 – $20.9 billion (2011)
2010☝$20.9 billion (2010)
2008☝$18.8 billion (2009)
2007☝$18.2 billion (2008)
2006☝$17.9 billion (2007)
2005☝$17.5 billion (2006)
2004☝$16.9 billion (2005)
2003☝$16.3 billion (2004)
2002👇$15.5 billion (2003) 2001☝$15.6 billion (2002)
—————————————————————— indirect mortality costs
(cost of lost productivity due to premature death)
—————————————————————— 2010 – $140.1 billion (2011)
2010☝$140.1 billion (2010)
2008☝$124.0 billion (2013)
2008👇$116.1 billion (2009) 2007☝$123.0 billion (2012)
2007☝$112.0 billion (2008)
2006👇$110.2 billion (2007) 2005☝$118.4 billion (2006)
2004👇$103.5 billion (2005) 2003☝$109 billion (2004)
2002☝$95.2 billion (2003)
2001☝$84.7 billion (2002)
—————————————————————— According to US Census Bureau:
—————————————————————— Americans uninsured 2012-2013had no health insurance coverage
—————————————————————— 2010👇approximately 50 million (2013) 2009 – almost 51 million (2012) 2009☝almost 51 million (2011) 2008☝46 million (2010)
—————————————————————— 2008 – approximately 28% aged 18 to 34 years (2010)
—————————————————————— 2010👇almost one-third of Hispanics (31%) (2013) 2009 – almost one-third of Hispanics (32%) (2012) 2009☝almost one-third of Hispanics (32%) (2011)
—————————————————————— 2011-2012 (17 years of age and younger) 2010-2012 – had no health insurance coverage
—————————————————————— 2010 – one in 10 children (2013) 2009 – one in 10 children (2012) 2009 – one in 10 children (2011) 2008 – 10% of children (2010)
—————————————————————— 2012-2013 PLEASE NOTE:
These numbers are not comparable to those published in previous years as of 2011, NIH calculating estimates using different data source:
2012 – NIH is using a different data source:
2012-2013Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
2012-2013 MEPS estimates based on more current, nationally representative data used extensively in scientific publications
2012-2013 direct and indirect costs will no longer be projected to current year, estimates of indirect morbidity costs discontinued
2012-2013 For more information, please visit nhlbi.nih.gov/about/factpdf.htm.
——————————————————————
Lack of health insurance and other barriers prevents many Americans from receiving optimal health care
—————————————————————— 2008 – early release estimates from National Health Interview Survey(2009) 2006 – early release estimates from the National Health Interview Survey(2008) 2004 – National Health Interview Survey data (2007) 2003 – National Health Interview Survey data (2006)
—————————————————————— 2008 – about 24% aged 18 to 64 years (2009) 2006☝about 24% aged 18-64 (2008) 2004 – about 17% younger than age 65 had no health insurance coverage (2007) 2003☝about 17% younger than age 65 have no health insurance coverage (2006)
—————————————————————— 2004 – 27% 65 and older had Medicare coverage only (2007) 2003☝24% 65 and older have Medicare coverage only (2006)
—————————————————————— 2008 – 13% of children had no health insurance coverage for at least part of past year (2009) 2006☝13% of children had no health insurance coverage for at least part of past year (2008)
—————————————————————— 2008 – More than 36% of adults who lack high school diploma were uninsured in past year (2009) 2006☝Almost 34% of adults who lack high school diploma were uninsured in past year (2008)
—————————————————————— 2008 – 23% of high school graduates (2009) 2006☝23% of high school graduates (2008)
—————————————————————— 2008👇14% of those with more than high school education (2009) 2006 – 15% of those with more than high school education (2008)
—————————————————————— 2008 – Lack of health insurance is not only a concern of unemployed; almost one-quarter of employed individuals (aged 18 to 64 years) were uninsured sometime during past year (2009)
—————————————————————— 2004 – Persons in lowest income group 10 times as likely as persons in highest income group not to receive needed medical care because of cost (2007)
—————————————————————— 2004 – Almost 16 million citizens (6%) were unable to obtain needed medical care due to cost (2007)
—————————————————————— 2003 – In survey, nearly 20% aged 18-44 years reported not having usual place to go for medical care (2006)
—————————————————————— 2010-2013 – Uninsured patients and ethnic minorities substantially more likely to be diagnosed with cancer at later stage, when treatment can be more extensive and more costly
—————————————————————— 2012-2013 – For more information on relationship between health insurance and cancer, see Cancer Facts & Figures 2008, Special Section, available online at cancer.org/statistics. 2010 – cancer.org. 2009 – (5008.08), Special Section, available online at cancer.org. 2008 – see special section page 22
GorskiGeekstarts off his soapbox stump speech:
—————————————————————— “I was very pleased last Friday, very pleased indeed”
——————————————————————
Of course he was
After all, it was as if USA TODAY was quoting directly from “The Skeptics™”fave Fahrvergnügen pharyngula and GorskGeeks’sjackedJulyjabberwocky at “The Amazing Meeting”2013 (TAM 2013 #TAM2013) Twitter Twaddle-fest
Given the normal subject matter of this blog, in which I face a seemingly unrelenting infiltration of pseudononsensepseudononscience and hackery into even the most hallowed halls of hacademic medicine, against which I seem to be fighting a mostly uphill battle, having an opportunity to see such an excellent non-deconstruction of science and medicine in a large badmainstream news outlet like USA TODAY, GONE TOMORROW is rare and ungratifying
GorskGeek gambits:
—————————————————————— “As you might recall, USA TODAY reporter Liz Szabo capped off a months-long investigation of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski and his Burzynski Clinic with an excellent (and surprisingly long and detailed) report, complete with sidebars explaining why cancer experts don’t think that Burzysnki’s anecdotes are compelling evidence that his treatment, antineoplastons, has significant anticancer activity and a human interest story about patients whom Burzynski took to the cleaners”
——————————————————————
My question ?
GorskGeek, how do you know it was a:
“months-long investigation” ?
The article does NOT indicate HOW LONG the USA TODAY“investigation” took
From this, I can only conclude, as I did after 1st reading the article, that based on the comments of Dr. David H. Gorski“Orac”, that there must have been collusion between “The Skeptics™” and USA TODAY
Most of this, of course, is no news to my readers, as I’ve been writing about Dr. Burzynski on a fairly regular basis for over 8 months now
—————————————————————— GorskGeek goofs:
—————————————————————— “It’s just amazing to see it all boiled down into three articles and ten short videos in the way that Szabo and USA TODAY did, to be read by millions, instead of the thousands who read this blog“
—————————————————————— Thousands read his blog ?
Does he mean over the 2 year period he’s been writing about Burzynski ?
GorskGeekInspector Gadgets:
—————————————————————— “Szabo also found out who the child was who died of hypernatremia due to antineoplastons in June 2012, a death that precipitated the partial clinical hold on Burzynski’s bogus clinical trials, about which both Liz Szabo and I have quoted Burzynski’s own lawyer, Richard Jaffe, from his memoir, first about Burzynski’s “wastebasket” trial, CAN-1“
—————————————————————— GorskGeek and USA TODAY both hashtag Failed to point out that a boy, the same age as Josia Cotto, survived a serum sodium (Na+) level of 234 mEq/L
If GorskGeek actually knew how to do real “science-based medicine” research, and if Liz Szabo and Jerry Mosemak had really actually done a “months-long investigation”, maybe USA TODAY and “Orac” could have had enough time to have figured the above out, as well as the clinical trialBurzynski’sattorney, Rick Jaffe, was referring to, was the CAN-1, which even you did NOT display any knowledge of in the July TAMmany Twaddle [3], and your 11/15/2013article[4]
——————————————————————
Naturally, upon reading Liz Szabo’s “ story,” I wondered how long it would be before there would be a response from GorskGeek or his minions
Both responses contain the same sorts of tropes, misinformation, and pseudononscience that I’ve come to expect from GorskGeek[1-2+4]
USA TODAY is biased and in the pocket of “The Skeptics™”
It was a “Shite Muslim Militia” piece
—————————————————————— GorskGeekdreamsicles:
—————————————————————— “I’ve deconstructed these, and many more, of Merola’s nonsense over the last two years”
“Odd how @BurzynskiMovie pretends I haven’t deconstructed his “evidence” in depth before”?
Really ?
GorskGeek is so much a monumental myopic Mythomaniac
GorskGeek all you did was “cherry-pick” what you wanted to blather about, and selectively ignored everything else
——————————————————————
What actually surprised me was the viscousness of the counterhackattack
For example, in counterhackattackingEric Merola’s letter to Liz Szabo, GorskGeek tries unsuccessfully to claim that Merola actually hopes that her child will get cancer, so that Burzynski supporters can gloat about it and Szabo will have to apologize to her children for her “perfidy” (in GorskGeek’s eyes, at least):
—————————————————————— GorskGeek gesticulates:
—————————————————————— “He denies that he hopes Szabo’s children will develop brain cancer, but then gloats gleefully over the possibility that she would have to face them after having—again in his mind—”helped to destroy the only thing that could have helped” them”
——————————————————————
In the dictionary, under the definition of “spin bowel movement (SBM),” there should be a picture of “Dr.” (and I use that term very “loosely”) David Gorski
GorskGeek would have fit in holistically as the propagandist for Hitler, Lenin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc.
Then, just when I thought GorskGeek couldn’t go any lower, he does, this time in his longer response on his blog
—————————————————————— “Eric Merola and Stanislaw Burzynski respond to the FDA findings and the USA TODAY story. Hilarity ensues”
——————————————————————
Obviously, to “Orac” asking GorskGeek to follow normal rules regulating medical ethics and human subject protections in critical trolls’ blog trials is exactly like murdering millions of people’s brain cells, carrying out horrible medical experimentation on common sense and sensibility, making untold numbers of Africans, slaves to his stupendousmess, and harassing, gratuitously, families of soldiers “killed” by his word salad battle
Didn’t anyone ever teach GorskGeek that you need to build up to that sort of climax ?
Of course, the big difference between Hitler’s propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels, unfortunately, is that compared to “Orac,” he had talent, and David GorskGeek does NOT
GorskGeek is a hack and is only funny by accident because he has no filters that tell him when he’s going way under the top
To him, Burzynski is an infidel
I do not share his belief, but, even worse, I have the temerity to criticize his god“Orac,” or, to mix metaphors shamelessly, to point out that GorskGeekhas no clothes
Since I’ve dealt with so many of the tropes included in GorskGeek’snot-so-little rant, I hardly see the need to repeat myself
However, as a breast cancer surgeon’s skeptic, I find one of GorskGeek’slies to be as despicable, or perhaps more so, than his ad hominem comparisons
—————————————————————— GorskGeek, the Hitler of hipocracy, came up with this hit parade of paranoia and “conspiracy theory”:
—————————————————————— “I don’t know what sort of attacks on the UK bloggers who produce the bulk of the skeptical blog posts about Burzynski are coming in Burzynski II, but when it comes to me no doubt Merola is referring to this bit of yellow journalism in 2010 from an antivaccine propagandist named Jake Crosby, entitled David Gorski’s Financial Pharma Ties: What He Didn’t Tell You” [5]
—————————————————————— GorskGeek then ad hocs ad nauseum about ad hominem fallacy
“In this fallacy, rather than addressing the actual evidence and science that demonstrate their favorite brand of woo to be nothing more than fairy dust, the idea is to preemptively attack and discredit the person“
“The ad hominem is not just insults or concluding that someone is ignorant because, well, they say ignorant things and make stupid arguments (in which case calling someone stupid or ignorant might just be drawing a valid, albeit impolitic, conclusion from observations of that person’s behavior), but rather arguing or insinuating that you shouldn’t accept someone’s arguments not because their arguments are weak but because they have this personal characteristic or that or belong to this group or that“[6]
—————————————————————— GorskGeek, the huckster of hackery laments that “The Skeptics™” are subject to character assassination, NOT because of their “science-based medicine”, but, alas, for being biased, lying, cowards
So, he must justify that as to why he then ad hominems those who he harangues:
—————————————————————— “In Burzynski The Movie, Dr. Whitaker has his nose embedded so far up Dr. Burzynski’s rectum that Dr. Burzynski wouldn’t need a colonoscopy if Merola just strapped a light to Dr. Whitaker’s face“[7]
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— “In the meantime, I realized that seeing Josh Duhamel stick his proboscis firmly up Burzynski’s posterior was not enough to explain the disturbance that I was feeling“[8]
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— GorskiGeek seems to have an unhealthy infatuation with ASS
My suppositorsition is that GorskiGeek, the highfalutin’ He-Man of hypocrisy, does wax on, wax off, waxes phonetic about ASS, because he is the apex of ASSmuchness
——————————————————————
In essence, he denies the toxicity of water in terms I’ve never seen anyone try to downplay before:
Water… is toxic?
This was perhaps the most stunningly malicious use of emotion to manipulate the reader in any of the propaganda pieces against H2O in history
—————————————————————— GorskGeekclaims:
—————————————————————— “Josia, as readers of Liz Szabo’s report will know, was the six year old boy with an inoperable brain tumor who died of hypernatremia (elevated sodium levels in the blood) as a result of Burzynski’s therapy“
—————————————————————— GorskGeek gassticulates:
—————————————————————— “As I pointed out last Friday and Szabo reported in her story, before his death Josia’s serum sodium was measured at 205 mEq/L, way above the normal range of 136-145 mEq/L and well into the lethal range”
“As I pointed out then, I’ve never seen a sodium level anywhere near that high“
“During my residency, the highest I recall ever seeing was maybe around 180 mEq/L”
——————————————————————
As I already pointed out previously in this article:
GorskGeek and USA TODAY both hashtag Failed to point out that a boy, the same age as Josia Cotto, survived a serum sodium (Na+) level of 234 mEq/L
GorskGeekclaims that Josiadied of hypernatremia (elevated sodium levels in the blood) as a result of Burzynski’s therapy
GorskGeek does NOT provide ANY citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) in support of his claim, and does NOT provide a copy of the autopsy
GorskGeek’s brain cells must be “sleeping in excess”, hence the symptoms of lethargy progressing ignorance of adverse events which approach critical black hole levels
Of course, none of this is new information
—————————————————————— GorskGeek hacks:
—————————————————————— “I also note that one of Burzynski’s most famous patients, Hannah Bradley, who with her partner Pete Cohen proclaims herself cured of her brain cancer, thanks to Burzynski, suffered some pretty serious toxicities from antineoplastons herself, including high fevers to 103.9° F, shaking chills, and severe rashes“
“Pete even documented how badly Hannah reacted to antineoplastons in his YouTube documentary Hannah’s Anecdote”
—————————————————————— GorskGeekflummoxes in that he erred to elucidate that the “rash” which Hannah experienced, even entailed epilepsy anti-seizure medication [4]
GorskGeekgambols the gabroni gambit by giving nothing but glib reasons for his genetically challenged gestation of Hannah’svlogs after gears up for Great Britain
Yes, GorskGeek is gabless about Hannah’sprogress in the G.B. as a germinating gerbil, as far as flu or fever, perhaps fearing his failure to feature any fact-checking facilitation a fanboy of Fanectdotes should fittingly fictionalize
——————————————————————
The rest of GorskGeek’srant reads like a greatest hits compilation from cancer hacks
You get the picture
That’s the whack-n-hack counterhackfensive trying to shore up Liz Szabo’ssorryarticle
—————————————————————— GorskGeekblowshard and long about the FDA Form 483′s findings, but does NOT heed his massive failure to be persuaded that:
“The FDA has not yet issued final conclusions”
——————————————————————
Who would doubt that if GorskGeek were to blog about Burzynski’s1997 criminal trial, that he would NOT list each and every one of the 34 counts of mail fraud, 40 counts of violating Food and Drug Administration regulations, and the 1 contempt-of-court charge; all “allegations”, which netted the U.S. Gubment absolutely NOTHING ? [9]
—————————————————————— GorskGeekidolizes the Burzynski Research Institute(BRI)IRB, because of Burzynski’sscientific publications, which indicate:
—————————————————————— 2003 – Membership of the Institutional Review Board(IRB) was in agreement with the Food and Drug Administration(FDA) [10]
—————————————————————— 3/2004 – Membership of the Institutional Review Board(IRB) was in agreement with the Food and Drug Administration(FDA) [10]
—————————————————————— 9/2004 – Membership of the Institutional Review Board(IRB) was in agreement with the Food and Drug Administration(FDA) [10]
—————————————————————— 2004 – Membership of Institutional Review Board(IRB) was in compliance with FDA guidelines [10]
—————————————————————— 6/2005 – Membership of the Institutional Review Board(IRB) was in agreement with the Food and Drug Administration(FDA) [10]
—————————————————————— GorskGeek then does a piss-poor“slight of hand job”, jerking the reader off about Pseudoprogression, pseudoresponse, so-called pseudoprogression, and “One phenomena, termed Pseudo-Progression (psPD)”
GorskGeekfalls flat face first for failing to show this phenomenon has factually happened [11]
====================================== 1/2012 – Sonali Patil, Ph.D., Research Scientist at The Burzynski Clinic (18:22) 9/18/2012
======================================
So you, you, you’re a scientist here ?
I’m a scientist here
And, and you work, just with antineoplastons ?
Not necessarily
This is our cell biology lab, and in molecular biology we do basic research on the antineoplastons
Sometimes we also study it in combination with the other, uh, medicines that Dr. Burzynski is interested in
So, but mostly antineoplaston
This is looking at mechanism for action
Trying to understand how it treats the cancer cells, is able to kill the cancer cells without damaging the other cells of the body
So mostly antineoplaston is the target here
And what do you think about antineoplastons ?
We have found, uh, very interesting, uh, molecular pathways targets that antineoplaston is targeting, working very effectively to kill the cells, um, probably better than many other drugs, because, um, it has multiple targets, and so attacks the cells from many different angles, and is able to kill the cancer cells, more effectively
So, can I ask you, how did you come to work in, th, the Burzynski
the institution ?
Through an advertisement, it was
My position was advertised
I started 8 years ago, and
So ok
So it was advertised
Mhmm
So when you applied for the job, were you aware of the controversy of, (comments to self: learn to talk)
So when, when did you find out ?
Uh, eh, as soon as I joined (laughing)
Oh yeah ?
Few months later
I thought, it’s easy to find
It’s not hard
Of course
It’s not even, uh
Wha, what about any of you other colleagues, that prior to coming here ?
I mean, did they say anything to you, like, you know ?
Well they brought something up
(?) in, uh, uh, being there for him during this trial, my boss, my previous boss was here before me
Uh, so I have a very open picture of it, and it doesn’t bother me
He came up against it and won
Yeah
So that’s a good thing
An, and why do you think, it kinda hasn’t been, kinda lost the word, hasn’t taken off, you know ?
Has the scientific community hasn’t really embraced ?
Well anything that is non-traditional always, you know, takes its own time to get to people
Besides, the traditionalists don’t want it coming out because, uh, it affects, a lot of other things, um, finance, in, in the big Pharma
Right
that is affected by this
So, um, if it, if it were, um, a medicine already with another big company, it probably would already be out in the market by now, but, uh, it’s because it’s one man’s show
He’s fighting against, uh, traditional medicine, big, big centers like M.D. Anderson right here in Houston
So, most people want to believe, uh, what the other doctors, the oncologists, are telling them, because that’s what everybody does
So very few filter out of that and come looking for him, because they’ve lost hope there, and they’ve tried everything else, and they come because; which I wish they wouldn’t, come here as a last resort, you know
Mmm
and, by then, sometimes, uh, enough damage has been done that is sometimes even he cannot cure
It’s not magic
It’s
There’s a logic to the way the medicine works
The science behind it is not, it’s not just a magic bullet
So, and you have to target it at the right time
Catch cancer at the right time
So I have a, friend of my mother’s at home, whose spent, her whole, academic career, 20, 30 years, researching, astrocytomas
Mhmm
And, uh, you know, I did my research, and, I was no doubt that we were coming here
No question
My, my research was more based on people
Excuse me
On people
Talking to people who had been treated, and seeing the results, and then looking at the research afterwards, and she was just saying that “I’ve spent all my years, research, and research, and research, I can’t find anything, that validates, this, this treatment”
Now I’m not asking you to comment on what she said, but,
No, validation, validation basically means, uh, proof in scientific community
If you’re not accepted into the scientific community, you’re not going to be able to present that truth, and we go and present at conferences all the time, eh, when it comes to publishing papers, uh, we haven’t been very successful Dr. Burzynski has published, uh, a lot of data of his patients
So it’s out there
Yeah
If you, if you want to believe it, and you’re looking for it, you’ll find it
Yeah
It’s just, um, it’s not in the mainstream places, because it gets rejected out of there
Um, it’ll probably take some time to get into those spots where everybody else is publishing, and everybody else is talking about it, but it doesn’t mean that it’s not true
So obviously you’re here on a daily basis
So when was the 1st
Last 8years
So the last 8 years
When was the 1st time you actually saw, was it in the dish where you actually saw it ?
Well we see it, we’ve seen it for years before I came here
Yeah, but when was the 1st time you saw it, when you came here yourself and you saw ?
Well we see it every day
Um, we have cancer cells in the lab, that we treat, with the medicine
We see them dying
We see them undergoing a necrosis, which is the cancer deaths, pathway, that most people study and talk about
So
So, it’s happening, it’s happening in front of our eyes everyday
So, we have proof for it
you know (?)
We just have to get it out there, and there’s a, there’s a system to all that
Um
and were trying to, get it through the system, and get it out there
So what, when you 1st realized there is something here, did you not just feel like just shouting from the rooftops and telling everybody?
Well I wasn’t the one who discovered
He did, in the ’80’s
Yeah
and since then he’s been shouting from the rooftop
It’s just, nobody would listen to him
Yeah, yeah
So, you know, we’re just doing the, uh, actually it’s backwards
People usually do, uh, pre-clinical research 1st, because the medicine
Mhmm
goes out and to the patients, and we, we are kind of doing it, the other way around
He already has patient data
He’s been treating people
on this
People, survivors walking around, to tell the story, and now we are being made to understand how it works in the cells
So, it’s, it’s kinda doing, the research, after the trials
Just tell me
One more question
What’s it like
How would you describe Dr. Burzynski?
I admire his, uh, passion, for what he does
He truly believes in what he does, and to me that’s, that’s a big thing
If you don’t believe in yourself, then nobody else will, and, his memory
He, he has tremendous memory, and, uh, uh, quick thinking
He’s able to piece together stuff, uh, research articles, papers, put together puzzle, come up with a theory
He does that every day, every time I meet him it’s, it’s interesting to me to see how his brain works
you say, in, in the purest sense, he’s a scientist
I think he’s a doctor 1st, but a doctor who’s very, very interested in science, and that’s an important thing, because a lot of, uh, doctors don’t care about the research, and he does
I think, I think his primary aim is to treat patients, mostly
So if there were any type of skeptic, research scientist out there, what would you say to them about what goes on here?
We do, we do, everything that happens in any other lab, anywhere else
I went to school at Houston, ah, so, I know exactly how the labs work
We do exactly what they do
Yeah
Um, we try to write up our papers, and send them to the journals, just like everybody else does
Uh, present at conferences
We try to get our data out there
Um, we’re trying to do our best, just the way everyone else is
I, I suppise trying to do your best it, it, it’s fascinating because you actually have something
Yeah
that really, really does work
Mhmm
I mean, it’s a cure, right ?
We believe it is
It’s a cure for cancer
Not for all cancers
I actually asked Dr. Burzynski
Mhmm
I filmed him the other day and said to him, why do you, specialize in brain tumors ?
Mhmm
Do you know what his answer was ?
What was it ?
He said it’s because it’s the most difficult type of cancer
Well it is if, if you think about it
I don’t think there are many doctors who claim to have survivors, eh, at least in the numbers that he has, to present
Yeah
and, um, I hear that at conferences too when we, were standing around, they will look at the slides, eh, eh, which is a tumor, and they will say: “Well that’s not a tumor,” ye, “it’s just necrosis
It’s just a patch on the skin, and you just cured nothing, and”, uh, all the, “the patient was probably cured from, the therapy that he took elsewhere, you know, the radiation he got 10 years ago”
“That’s probably what cured him,” but, you know, th, those kind of patients will be rejected from other, hospitals, don’t survive, that far enough to, to tell a story
So what is it ?
Just people living in denial ?
Is it fear ?
Is it ?
Fear or denial
I’m going to do what everybody else does
Why, why should I go out and do something different, here ?
Yeah (?)
And, and lastly, you know the, the power the pharmaceutical companies have
Well of course
I mean, but I’m nobody to, comment about that
Yeah, yeah
You know
There’s, there’s a lot going on behind the scenes that we are not even aware of, but this is just what, um, my experience is, when I talk to other doctors at meetings and conferences, and they, you’re immediately dismissed as, oh, you know: “What you’re going to say doesn’t really make any sense because you work for, Dr.”
His name has been tarnished
——————————————————————
There’s a lot more, to that, than just, people playing politics, this, this, a whole lot of stuff going on behind there
So, I don’t think it’s, it’s (supression ?) as much, it’s just trying to tell your story, uh, so that somebody would listen and accept it, uh, maybe using, the right channels, going, presenting it in a different way, make it more convincing
All that, would help
So if it, if it was you, in his position, would you not have just given up ?
Or would you
Oh, definitely
We all talk about it all the time, that the amount of determination that he has, most people, would back off and leave, but like I said, he believes in what he does, and that’s what keeps him going
Yeah
As far as publishing is concerned, ’cause a lot of scientist want to see
We’ve tried
We, we, don’t get past the initial screening
We repeatedly send it back to other journals and that’s the process I keep doing all the time
Comes back, I send it back to another journal
Hopefully, one day it will get it
So, let, let, let, let me get this straight, ok ?
You write articles, right ?
Papers
Papers
Mhmm
and you submit them to, medical journals
Mhmm
and then what happens ?
They come back
Why do they come back ?
Sometimes, um, if they get to reviewers, uh, it’s not enough data, or, which I understand
We can work on changing, modifying papers, but, many times they come back, without any reason
They just get rejected, at the 1st, screen itself
So they come back without any reason
And why do you feel that is, in your own humble opinion ?
Wha ? (laughing) not humble opinion
It’s, it’s hard, um, publishing is a tricky game, you know ?
You have to publish once, to get your name in there, and then, they might publish you again, but, uh, with the negative publicity that we already had, and most of the community would look at the name and say: “Oh we, we just don’t want to, want to even read it”
So, it, it doesn’t even get past the 1st screen, because they don’t turn, flip the 1st page even
Ok, so, what you’re saying is that you see things that are published in these journals
Oh yes
And, you see ?
very similar stuff
We try to, we try to do research that is on par, uh, with what everybody else is doing, as far as the techniques, the ana, the data analysis
We, we try to do everything which is the standard for, uh, the research community, but, doesn’t get past
Um, how frustrating must that be for you ?
Mmm, it is (laughing), it is
So do you feel like you’re a party, or you’re trying to get into a party, and knocking on the door, and no one’s letting you in ?
I feel like that at the conferences too because, um, sometimes they come up to your, poster presentations, and, um, they’ll ridicule you right there, while you’re standing there by your presentation
Ok, just last thing, because one of the things I heard
Mhmm
recently, which were, that, uh, there’s some evidence that Dr. Burzynski has from, from the phase 2 clinical trials, showing people who have, uh, glioblastomas who’ve been alive for 10 years
Mhmm
and there’s something there that they want to try and get published
Mhmm
What you’re saying is, that might never get published ?
Well, Dr. Burzynski’s case is different
He has published some of his patient data
I’m talking about the research, uh, the pre-clinical research, the cell culture data, the molecular data
Um, we haven’t had success getting that out, but, he has, he also faces rejection a lot, but he doe, he has managed to get ta, a few publications in
So how does it work ?
If, if you submit something they can
What’s the process ?
They can submit it back ?
That’s not, there’s a review
There’s a whole review board
Um, you can select your reviewers
It goes through couple of cycles of review before it’s, agreed that they will publish it
So,
And in case they say no to publishing it
You can
do you, can you take it somewhere else ?
Yeah, you can take it somewhere else, but, um, but it’s, the peer-reviewed journals that are the ones that you want to get into, you can publish whatever you want, ah, that doesn’t count
That’s why when, somebody who’s of, uh, any significance in science would not even look at those articles if they’re not in a peer-review journal
So, they have to get into a decent place to make a mark
Do you think that will happen ?
What do you think has to happen in order for ?
It’ll happen, in, in time
They can’t keep refusing you
We, we try again and again
——————————————————————
But in time they just want to, not focus on it, and just have’m, bring in more numbers, and keep doing this, and in the meantime keep treating, some number of patients
On, on, top of everything, my personal belief is, uh, brain tumors are not, uh, a money-raising factor, because it’s a, it’s a minority cancer
If this were treating, uh, mainstream cancers as they’re called, as, uh, breast cancer, maybe they would look at it more seriously, but the numbers, with the brain tumors, which is a good thing
I mean it’s a deadly cancer
You don’t want more people to have it, but, that puts it in the category of, um, you know, not so feasible, as far as the money-making
And so, the priority; even though, it’s the most vicious, and it should be looked at more seriously, but, it’s not the one that brings the big bucks
So
So, put it aside
So why would the FDA, haven’t closed him down then ?
Because they, they, uh, believe the data that he’s sending them so far, and they don’t have a valid point to, just say no, it doesn’t work, and put it away
They see effect, and so they want, more numbers, more data
Is it, it the phase 2 trial is finished ?
Mhmm
but they’re still accepting people ?
Yeah
on more like a special ?
Special basis, and, um, sometimes compassionate grounds
(compassion exception)
Uh, exceptions
That’s normal ?
Yes
So
(Yes I guess it is a funding issue ?)
Right
(Like FDA, during the 2nd phase of clinical trials they found the data to be, real, real one, and they gave him the ok to go for 3rd phase of clinical trials, but just to go through this process you would probably need $100,000)
(?) and that’s stalling
(even more, millions dol, millions of dollars, to go through the 3rd phase of clinical trials, and)
(?)
(he’s a single doctor
It’s a 1st case)
Yeah
(probably in American history)
It is
(that single doctor is trying, to get a his job)
Self-funded
(approval
Self-funded
Whatever you’ve seen on that plant, everything came out of his practice
So he was the one who funded, literally the, the, research and development phase, but those installation, operation, all this big plant was built ?)
Yes, ’cause, uh,
(private)
one of the things I hear a lot, I’ve heard slot in the U.K. is that: “Why is he charging people for clinical trials ?
Well, uh, how else would you run this place ?
Exactly
How will you run this place, and how else will people be on the trial, because
Right
you know, there’s no pharmaceutical company involved here, right ?
There’s nothing
Nothing
It’s all out of his pocket
Every single bit
So
And what is stalling (?) is (?) again is, is funds
Money
Yeah, I also heard that the phase 3 they wanna do radiotherapy with, with it
Mmm
Hopefully, that will not be the case, but
we’re trying to
I think, uh, he is trying to fight against that, but, the FDA is the FDA, so
And what do you think about this case, he’s now got coming up in April ?
You know, he’s got this court case
Well there’s always something
Yeah (laughing)
He, he’s won before, so
Yeah
Do you think he needs the support, do you think he feels the support from, from all of you ?
I think so, for sure
(Oh, absolutely)
Yeah
Nobody forced us to work here
(Ah-hah)
Yeah
We get paid, but, you know
I could always look for another job if I needed to (laugh)
Yeah
So would you stay here because you really believe in what’s going on here ?
(?)
(Yes, that’s one thing that’s unique about our operation, and I’m talking about this location is, uh, whoever joined the company; and we have a guys who joined the company in the 80’s, 90’s
They stay with the company
Turnover is zero)
Yeah
(Joined the company
Stays with the company
It’s a challenge)
Yeah
(It’s a (?) challenge for us)
======================================
Didymus Judas Thomas' Hipocritical Oath Blog 