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
[WP:SOP]“Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then. 7.”)
Due & undue weight: 
“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant & should not be considered,”
[WP:NPOV]“History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note 3)
(Neutral Point of View)
—————————————————————— TRANSLATION: Wikipedia editors, YOUR OPINION IS NOT RELEVANT
—————————————————————— MEANING: It is meaningless to attempt to slather your biased OPINION all over Wikipedia like butter on Texas toast, since supposedly, we only care about verifiable FACTS
Wikipedia, what the problem is ?
Jimmy Donal Wales
No, “The Who” is actually really British!
(as opposed to some “furreigner” who plops across the pond, wants to pound one of your pelts after a celebrity hunt, pops it in his bonnet, pip-pips about, and mounts it up on his rented wall along with what’s left of his balls)
I’m writing, of course, about “Jimbo,” the one who got away . . . Thankfully
The recipient of the write-up earlier this year in The New York Times (Oh, pithy!!)
—————————————————————— Wales, who no longer runs the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia
“He applies his libertarian worldview to the Internet and has taken on institutions like the United States government“
You must be bloody well rightjoking me
(joking me ? Quit jokin’ me !)
JimCrow’s ’bout as “libertarian” as Fidel Castrowith a gun in his hand and (f)lies between his teeth; from traveling with the windows down
Stephen Colbert shoulda seen that comin’ from a 8 mile away
Hey Stephen, Report’ THAT !!!
—————————————————————— “He grew up in Huntsville, Ala., the son of a teacher and a retail man“
And obviously, he didn’t “learnt” well
I think a refund’s in order
And here’s your free school Insolence to go with it
Happy eat in’
It is claimed that “HE” spends time:
—————————————————————— “traveling the world giving talks on free speech and Internet freedom“
Welcome to MizFitTV
What would “Jymboree” know about “free speech” and “Internet freedom,“ anyway ?
How many days did you serve your country in the United States military ?
Oh, you did NOT realize that while you were in San Diego, you could have signed that contract ?
After all, he’s no Vincent Kennedy McMahon” (“HE” knows where “HIS”GRAPEFRUITS are)
====================================== “B.D.F.L., or the Benevolent Dictator for Life”
Big Disappointing Fascist Loser ?
—————————————————————— “Argumentum ad Jimbonem” means dutifully following what Wales says, but there are even arguments about that”
—————————————————————— WP:NICETRY, but that’s “SHEEPLE”
—————————————————————— “One Wikipedia editor said, for instance, that Wales was no longer comfortable with the B.D.F.L. description”
—————————————————————— Jiminy Cricket!
Did “FASCIST” hit a bit too close to home ?
—————————————————————— “(There is, among some, a debate over what to call him)”
“Some users have also disputed the Latinized version of “Jimbo.”“
“(Should it be “Jimboni” or “Jimbini”?)”
—————————————————————— Can you smell what “The Rock” is cookin’ ?
La-La-La-La-Laaaaaaawwww, JIMBRONI !!!!!!!
Get ready, and bend over, ’cause I’m gonna shine this thing up, turn it sideways, and shove it straight up your Candy AstroTurf hatch
—————————————————————— Introduction (statement of principles) [WP:SOP]
“This is a statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then”
—————————————————————— (Or if you go by The New York Times article,  Jimbroni is the “co-founder” who tries to re-write history to make it appear that “HE” is the one-and-onlyFascist Founder ?)
“I should point out that these are my principles, such that I am the final judge of them”
“This does not mean that I will not listen to you, but it does mean that at some ultimate, fundamental level, this is how Wikipedia will be run”
—————————————————————— No, actually, it DOES mean that he will NOT listen to you, as was the case when he ignored my 2/7/2013 appeal
In his defense, perhaps Kate Garvey has his balls
1. “Wikipedia’s success to date is entirely a function of our open community”
“This community will continue to live and breathe and grow only so long as those of us who participate in it continue to Do The Right Thing”
“Doing The Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the neutral point of view policy and for a culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty”
The problem with this Wacky Tobacky“We are the (Wiki) World”WikiWhOReD Wonderland Jimbroni’s living in, is that “HE” has NOT been Doing The Right Thing since “HE”abdicated “his”“neutral point of view policy” and “culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty,” to “The Skeptics”
“The Skeptics,” who serve as gatekeepers of the Burzynski Clinic article, and who cite Dr. David H. Gorski a/k/a “Orac” aka GorskGeekas if he were a “reliable source”
“The Skeptics,” who bring new meaning to the term“Wikipedia Zero”
“The Skeptics,” who are Intellectual Cowards like their falsegodGorski, the Closet Communist of Science-Based Medicine a/k/a Science-Basted Medicine aka Science-Based Mudicine(Spinning Bowel Movement), WikiWordsmith Wannabes, nut-jobbers, stale from their failure at the National Peanut Festival in Dothan, Alabama
3. ““You can edit this page right now” is a core guiding check on everything that we do”
“We must respect this principle as sacred”
Do the lies just dribble off your chin like phlegm?
You canNOT just go in and “edit” the Burzynski Clinic article “page right now”
That statement is pure, unadulteratedAlabamaB.S.
That’s NOT a “sacred principle,” it’s sacré “bull”
7. “Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity”
Unfortunately, you do NOT practice what you preach, do you, HYPOCRITE ?
—————————————————————— “They should be encouraged constantly to present their problems in a constructive way”
So that you can ignore the problem(s), right, Jimbroni ?
—————————————————————— “Anyone who just complains without foundation, refusing to join the discussion, should simply be rejected and ignored”
—————————————————————— THAT would automatically exclude all of “The Skeptics” now, wouldn’t it ?
“We must not let the “squeaky wheel” be greased just for being a jerk”
—————————————————————— Jimbroni, why have you allowed “The Skeptics” to choose from their “squeaky” wheel-house bag o’ tricks, get all “greased” up and jerk” so many people around in such a big CIRCLE-JERK, for so long?
8. “Diplomacy consists of combining honesty and politeness”
“Both are objectively valuable moral principles”
“Be honest with me, but don’t be mean to me”
“Don’t misrepresent my views for your own political ends, and I’ll treat you the same way”
—————————————————————— “Honesty” and “politeness” are really great “buzzwords,” Jimbroni, but they are as foreign to your “Skeptics,” as “moral principles”
A great example of the questionable“honesty” and “moral principles” of one of your apparatchiks, was demonstrated 2/3/2013, 6:56, when I sent an arbitration appeale-mail to Wikipedia, advising, in part, that the e-mail listed on Wikipedia; as the one that blocked users should use, did NOT work, because there was NO “@” sign in it
There was a . (period) where the “@” sign belonged
—————————————————————— 2/3/2013, 8:11 AM, Anthony (AGK) BASC firstname.lastname@example.org advised:
“Everything you have said in that e-mail demonstrates a misunderstanding or misreading of Wikipedia policy”
Check the “time” and “place” where you are, so that you, too, can advise, that according to Wikipedia, pointing out to them that the e-mail they advise people to use, DOES NOT WORK; because there is no “@” sign in it (instead, there’s a . (period)), translates into meaning:
—————————————————————— “Everything you have said in that e-mail demonstrates a misunderstanding or misreading of Wikipedia policy”
====================================== Core principles
Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset [WP:SR]
Wikipedia does not have its own views, or determine what is “correct”
I wish I could LIE like that, but I have a conscience
====================================== 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:52 pm – 21:52 (UTC) –
“We are told that 2013 will be a big year, but apparently his plan is to release another bullshit movie not to publish useful research”
Does anyone other than me NOT think it a “coinkydink” that some “Guy” on Wikipedia, going by the name “Guy”, using the same 2 words (“Bullshit movie”) as a “Guy” on Twitter ?
2. Founding principles:
“Neutrality is mandatory . . . “
—————————————————————— I call B.S.
“Neutrality is mandatory,”EXCEPT on the Burzynski Clinic article, controlled by “The Skeptics”
4. “Ignore all rules (IAR):”
“Rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone”
Especially when Jimbroni allows “The Skeptics”
to “dictator” the “rules”
“The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule”
“The common purpose of building an encyclopedia trumps both”
“This means that any rule can be broken for a very good reason, if it ultimately helps to improve the encyclopedia”
And “The Skeptics” are NOT required to provide ANY reason for having broken “any rule”
“It doesn’t mean that anything can be done just by claiming IAR, or that discussion is not necessary to explain one’s decision”
But do NOT expect Wikipedia to require anything from The Skeptics”
—————————————————————— Founding principles
1. “Neutral point of view (NPOV) as a mandatory editorial principle”
—————————————————————– EXCEPT when it comes to the Burzynski Clinic article
—————————————————————— 12/26/2012 – I attempted to get Wikipedia to reference the interview which Burzynski’s attorney, Richard (Rick) A. Jaffe, and Lola Quinlan’s attorney; who posted it on his web-site, had given: 
Please add re WP:NPOV that Burzynski’s attorney, Richard Jaffe has disputed Lola Quinlan’s claims:
“On February 1, 2012, Dr. Burzynski’s attorney, Richard Jaffe, disputed Lola Quinlan’s allegations on Houston’s KPRC News.”
Thank you very much.[[User: Didymus Judas Thomas 15:03, 12/26/2012 (UTC)
—————————————————————— So? [OR] Disputing it in the media probably means he doesn’t have a case. [/OR] In any case, a lawyer disputing the allegations against his client is not even news. — [[User: Arthur Rubin 15:24, 12/26/2012 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin, I’m not sure what relevance your above post has re WP:NPOV since the articleincludes statements from attorneys representing both sides
17:51, 12/27/2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas
====================================== 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:54 pm (21:54.UTC) – “What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it, which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least promising.”
[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([User JzG/help|Help!])
“Nobody else is doing meaningful work on it” ?
Ignores independent research done in Poland, Russia, Korea, Egypt, Japan, & China which specifically reference SRB’s publications in their publications re antineoplastons & phenylacetylglutamine (PG); which is AS2-5, & includes phase III trials published in China & continued research being published in China 12/17/2012?
1. I pointed out to Wikipedia, a 12/17/2012 scientific publication re antineoplastons, which referenced Burzynski@ 22. (antineoplaston AS21)
2. 7 days after this scientific journal was published, Wikipedia’a“Guy (Help!’s) ”response, Monday, 12/24/2012 @ 3:54 pm, is to advise me:
“What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it, which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least promising.”
Guy (Help!) 3:54 pm, 12/24/2012, Monday
3. So, Wikipedia’s, Guy (Help!), defines an event having been published7 days ago (12/17/2012 to 12/24/2012) as:
“…nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it…”
—————————————————————— Rhode Island Redattempts to get away with misquoting me:
“The other argument is that the secondary sources (i.e., respected cancer organizations, FDA, etc.) are not reliable because they are Burzynski’s “competitors”
[[User: Rhode Island Red]] 4:18 pm, Yesterday (UTC−6)
What a Wipocrite (Wiki+Hypocrite)
Steve Pereira (SilkTork) is such a “WIPOCRITE,” that he claims:
—————————————————————— “the community were united that your contributions were biased”
He conveniently; like a good little mini-Jimbroni would, ignores ALL of his fellow WIPOCRITES comments, which completely ignored:
—————————————————————— ([WP:SOP]“Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then. 7.”)
Due & undue weight: 
“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant & should not be considered,”
[WP:NPOV]“History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note 3)
(Neutral Point of View)
1. 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:52 pm – 21:52 (UTC) – “We are told that 2013 will be a big year, but apparently his plan is to release another bullshit movie not to publish useful research”
2. 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:54 pm (21:54.UTC) – “What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it, which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least promising.”
3. 12/26/2012, Wednesday – 12:43 – “There is unlikely to be any dispassionate debate over ANPs while Burzynskicontinues with his unethical practices.”
4. 12/30/2012 8:58 “The world, right now, considers Burzynski to be at best unethical and at worst a quack…”?
Am I NOT the only one convinced that “the community” was also “united” in something more than just their “goose-stepping ?
—————————————————————— Pereira, the imperfect‘pedia Pimp tries to Wow his readers by waxing WikiWhOReD, by ignoring that ALL the previous BIASED opinion B.S. that his fellow-Facist forged ahead with, and which Wikipediantic history says means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (say it again) because it is their BIASED OPINION and is ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS, and it was as so much WikiLitter, well, he’s just facist-free speechless about that, as any Jimbroni AstroTurf Twerk should be
To show exactly what zealots these WikiPimps are, just absorb this exchange:
“The Burzynski Clinic Article has:
“…a Mayo Clinic study found no benefit….”
But that was not what the study concluded
Although we could not confirm any tumor regression in patients in this study, the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficacy.”
In the interest of Neutrality, please remove the reference to Mayo entirely or change to;
—————————————————————— “…a Mayo Clinic study found that “the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficacy.”
Thank you very much
Didymus Judas Thomas 21:12, 12/10/2012
“How is “found no benefit” not a a fair and pithy description of the Mayo Clinic study’s summary?”
Alexbrn 21:24, 12/10/2012
—————————————————————— “I feel this should be changed under WP:NPOV because not every reader is going to understand the “Fair & Pithy” reason I was provided
I feel that the average reader reading this will read it as meaning a study was done & completed with the necessary # of people for an effective study, when that was not the conclusion as pointed out in my above post
Thank you very much.”
Didymus Judas Thomas 11:02, 12/18/2012
—————————————————————— NO RESPONSE
That’s right !
“NO RESPONSE” from the “mini-b”(a/k/a “mini-brain”), wannabe Fascists who are so zealous about using their alleged“Fair and Pithy” “found no benefit” WikiWhOReD; which they utilize in an effort to deceive those who are NOTsmarter than a fifth-grader
These WikiPimps are so certain of the righteousness of their evangelical cause, that they do NOT even have the “GRAPEFRUITS” to use what the study’s conclusions actually said, and let the chips fall where they may
There are a lot of “chips” falling at Wikipedia
JIMBRONI, you’re no Maggie Thatcher
You can’t even wear her pants
—————————————————————— Margaret Thatcher: “The Iron Lady”
Jimbroni: “No iron in the pants”
—————————————————————— Jimbroni’s list of Facist, mini-Hitler, Monty Pythonesque Women’s underwear wearing Wannabes on Wikipediantic:
These mini-b’s went so far as to allege all sorts of sockpuppetry
Wikipediantic, why don’t you list all the dates and times I was supposedly doing all of these activities; and don’t forget to include all the time I spent blogging, on Twitter, making comments on articles, etc., and once you have all that data compiled, explain how one individual could do all that in a 24-hour day
That’s right Wikipediantic
I’m challenging you to put up or shut up your cornholio
Does anyone know SHARON HILL??? ——————————————————————
—————————————————————— no ?
NO NEVER MATTER ——————————————————————
—————————————————————— NOT HARDLY !
If it’s “Doubtful News”, that’s a “Hint and a Half” that it’s “Doubtful” it’s “News” 
In fact, I first received confirmation that what flows down-Hill was definitely, NO doubtfully, NOT news, when she displayed her “propensity” for “density” on #Forbes  ——————————————————————
—————————————————————— “Orac”, “The Skeptics™” Dope-on-a-Rope Pope. claimed:
4/19/2013 – “also obsessively read anything posted about Eric Merola or Stanislaw Burzynski on any social media.” ——————————————————————
—————————————————————— 5/7/2013 – “If “Orac” was anywhere close to being 75% sure, I would have already reviewed “Doubtful News,” which received “free pub” on Forbes ——————————————————————
—————————————————————— “The Skeptics™” must have got into Liz Szabo’s ear, since she subsequently short-sheeted herself by being unable to answer her own question ——————————————————————
Maybe Szabo shoulda asked the F.D.A. !! ——————————————————————
All that Jerry Mosemak (@jmosemak), Connie Mosemak, and Mosemak Creative(@mosemakcreative) wanted to know was what Twitter thought of their Twerk ——————————————————————
—————————————————————— Bob Blaskiewicz, fresh off the AstroTurf campaign with “Orac’s”orifice, seemed ready to really be headed, right in to rectify on Liz’s ——————————————————————
—————————————————————— Liz, do you really want this anywhere around your backside ? ——————————————————————
—————————————————————— Bob-B obviously confused Liz Szabo with being a “journalist“, when she is a “reporter“
Ms. Szabo, is obviously NOT a“journalist”
—————————————————————— Liz Szabo(USA TODAY) – health reporter, medical reporter covering cancer, heart disease, pediatrics, public health, women’s health, kids/parenting, …
The question is, how did a “reporter” like Liz Szabo, manage to get her name as the reporter“headlining”“The Skeptics™”“report,” instead of Robert Hanashiro?
Hanashiro had under his belt:
—————————————————————— 8/3/2011 – Urine test may help predict prostate cancer risk 
The best Szabo could cite as support was:
—————————————————————— 3/19/2008 – “Prostate cancer treatments’ sexual, urinary side effects compared”
Exactly how didLiz Szabo“win” that “pissing contest”?
Even a monkey can report the news:
10/18/2013 – Monkeys ‘talk in turns’ 
If @LizSzabo wanted to do a REALarticle on “selling false hope to cancer patients”, then USA TODAY should have done an “investigation” on something like THIS: ====================================== 8/25/2010, Wednesday
—————————————————————— Canadian Man Sentenced to 33 Months (2 years 9 months) in Prison for Selling Counterfeit Cancer Drugs Using the Internet
Hazim Gaber, 22, of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada sentenced in Phoenix, Arizona by U.S. District Court JudgeJames A. Teilborg
Ordered to pay $128,724($75,000fine$53,724in restitution)
Serve 3 years of supervised release following prison term for selling counterfeit cancer drugs using Internet
—————————————————————— 6/30/2009 – indicted by federal grand jury in Phoenix, Arizona: 5 counts of wire fraud for selling counterfeit cancer drugs through website DCAdvice.com
—————————————————————— 7/25/2009 – arrested Frankfurt, Germany
—————————————————————— 12/18/2009 – extradited to United States
—————————————————————— 5/2010 – plea hearing: admitted selling what he falsely claimed was experimental cancer drug sodium dichloroacetate, also known as DCA, to at least 65 victims (.10/2007 – 11/2007) in:
1. United States
3. United Kingdom
5. the Netherlands
According to plea agreement, charged: $23.68 for 10grams of purported DCA $45.52 for 20grams
or $110.27 for 100grams
Admitted sent victims white powdery substance later determined through laboratory tests to contain:
4. starch Contained no DCA
According to court documents, along with counterfeit DCA, packages also contained fraudulent certificate of analysis from fictitious laboratory and instructions on how dilute and ingest bogus DCA
DCA is experimental cancer drug not yet approved by U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in United States
According to plea agreement knew that website DCAdvice.com contained false claims it was only legal supplier of DCA and falsely claimed it was associated with University of Alberta
According to information contained in plea agreement, DCA is odorless, colorless, inexpensive, relatively non-toxic experimental cancer drug highly sought by cancer patients
Doctor at University of Alberta in Canada published report in early 2007 summarizing results of study, which showed DCA caused regression in several cancers, including:
1. breast cancer
2. cancerous brain tumors
3. lung cancer
According to information contained in plea agreement, DCA cannot be prescribed by medical doctor in:
1. United States
1. it is not approved for use in patients with cancer
2. nor is DCA available in pharmacies
As part of plea agreement, agreed to:
2. domain name
3. Internet services account
related to fraud scheme
“Hazim Gaber went from selling false hope to cancer patients to now spending 33 months in a U.S. prison,”
said Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of Criminal Division
“Criminals often seek to exploit the most vulnerable of victims – but offering fake, unapproved medication to cancer patients reaches a new low”
“Today’s sentence shows that cyber criminals who prey on the seriously ill cannot elude justice simply by committing crimes outside of our borders.”
“Gaber used the Internet to victimize people already suffering from the effects of cancer,”
said Dennis K. Burke, U.S. Attorney for District of Arizona
“Now he will go to prison for this bogus business and heartless fraud.”
“The FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office are committed to pursuing individuals who prey on those who are living with the affects of cancer,”
said Nathan Gray, Special Agent in Charge of FBI Phoenix Division
“Today’s sentencing illustrates international law enforcement partners working together to send a message not to use the Internet to perpetuate fraud, especially against those afflicted with a serious medical condition.”
Sentencing part of larger department-wide effort led by Department of Justice Task Force on Intellectual Property (IP Task Force)
Attorney General Eric Holder created IP Task Force to combat growing number of:
3. intellectual property crimes
of American consumers
safeguard nation’s economic security against those who seek to profit illegally from American creativity, innovation and hard work
IP Task Force seeks to strengthen intellectual property rights protection through heightened:
1. civil enforcement
2. criminal enforcement
greater coordination among:
law enforcement partners
increased focus on international enforcement efforts, including reinforcing relationships with key:
1. foreign partners
2. U.S. industry leaders
1. Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of Criminal Division
2. U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke for District of Arizona
3. FBI Special Agent in Charge of Phoenix Field Office Nathan T. Gray
Case prosecuted by:
1. Trial Attorney Thomas S. Dougherty of Criminal Division’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section
2. Assistant U.S. Attorney Peter Sexton of U.S. Attorney’s Office for District of Arizona
Significant assistance provided by:
1. Alberta Justice Office of Special Prosecutions-Edmonton
2. Alberta Partnership Against Cross Border Fraud
3. Competition Bureau of Canada
4. Edmonton Police Service
5. Federal Trade Commission
6. U.S. Postal Inspection Service
Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs provided assistance in case
Case investigated by Phoenix FBI Cyber Squad
10-958 Criminal Division ====================================== 7/30/2013 – United States to Settle Cancer Research Grant Fraud 
—————————————————————— Northwestern University to Pay Nearly $3 Million to United States to Settle Cancer Research Grant Fraud Claims
$2.93 million – Northwestern University will pay United States to settle claims of cancer research grant fraud by former researcher and physician at university’sRobert H. Lurie Comprehensive Center for Cancer in Chicago
Agreed to settlement in federal False Claims Act lawsuit after government investigated claims made by former employee and whistleblower who will receive portion of settlement
Alledgedly allowed researcher, Dr. Charles L. Bennett, to submit false claims under research grants from National Institutes of Health
Settlement covers improper claimsDr. Bennett submitted for reimbursement from federal grants (1/1/2003 – 8/31/2010) for:
4. other expenses
5. professional and consulting services
1. Dr. Bennett
Allegations made in civil lawsuit filed under seal 2009 by Melissa Theis, (2007 and 2008) worked as purchasing coordinator in hematology and oncology at Northwestern’s Feinberg School of Medicine, will receive $498,100 in settlement proceeds
Suit named defendants:
1. Dr. Bennett
2. Dr. Steven T. Rosen
3. Lurie Cancer Center
Alleged defendants submitted false claims to United States when:
1. Dr. Bennett
2. Dr. Rosen
directed and authorized spending of grant funds on goods and services that did not meet applicable NIH and government grant guidelines
Government contends has certain civil claims against Northwestern arising out of Northwestern’s improper submission of claims to NIH for grant expenditures for items that were for personal benefit of:
1. Dr. Bennett
incurred in connection with grants as to which he was principal investigator
Northwestern, fully cooperated during investigation, did not admit liability as part of settlement
Agreement releases university and all its affiliates and employees, other than Dr. Bennett, from claims made in whistleblower lawsuit
Northwestern agreed to pay settlement within 14 business days
Agreement covers allegations university submitted false claims to NIH for costs Dr. Bennett incurred on grant-funded research projects involving:
1. adverse drug-events
2. blood disorder known as thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura
3. multiple myeloma drugs
4. quality of care for cancer patients
Dr. Bennett allegedly billed federal grants for:
1. family trips
and “consulting fees” for unqualified:
2. family members
At Dr. Bennett’s request, Northwestern allegedly improperly subcontracted with various universities for services that were paid for by NIH grants
Allegations investigated by:
1. Federal Bureau of Investigation
2. National Institutes of Health
3. U.S. Attorney’s Office
4. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General
“Allowing researchers to use federal grant money to pay for personal travel, hotels, and meals, and to hire unqualified friends and relatives as ‘consultants’ violates the public’s trust,”
said Gary S. Shapiro, United States Attorney for Northern District of Illinois
“This settlement, combined with the willingness of insiders to report fraud, should help deter such misconduct, but when it doesn’t, federal grant recipients who allow the system to be manipulated should know that we will aggressively pursue all available legal remedies,”
“The mismanagement or improper expenditure of grant funds is unacceptable and will not be tolerated,”
said Lamont Pugh III, Special Agent-in-Charge of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General – Chicago Region
“The OIG will continue to diligently investigate allegations of this nature to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being properly utilized.”
Cory B. Nelson, Special Agent-in-Charge of Chicago Office of Federal Bureau of Investigation said:
“The FBI takes allegations of fraud seriously, especially those allegations from insiders who are often in the best position to detect wrongdoing long before it would otherwise come to the attention of law enforcement.”
United States represented by:
Assistant U.S. Attorney Kurt N. Lindland
Under federal False Claims Act, defendants may be liable for triple amount of actual damages and civil penalties between $5,500 and $11,000 for each violation
Individual whistleblowers may be eligible to receive between 15 and 30 percent of amount of any recovery ====================================== Show EmorME the Money ! 
—————————————————————— 8/28/2013, Wednesday
$1.5 Million – Emory University False Claims Act Investigation
University Overbilled Medicare and Medicaid for Patients Enrolled in Clinical Trial Research at Emory’s Winship Cancer Institute
Settlement with Emory University
$1.5 million – agreed to pay to settle claims it violated False Claims Act by billing:
for clinical trial services not permitted by:
1. Medicaid rules
2. Medicare rules
Providers generally not permitted to bill Medicare for medical care and services for which clinical trial sponsor agreed to pay
1. United States
2. State of Georgia
alleged Emory University billed:
for services clinical trial sponsor agreed to pay
(and, in some cases, actually did pay, thereby resulting in Emory’sbeing paid twice for the same service)
Investigation of Emory University revealed institution’s clinical trial false billing and led to settlement
Civil settlement resolves lawsuit filed by Elizabeth Elliot under qui tam, whistleblower, provisions of False Claims Act
Ms. Elliot will receive share of settlement payment that resolves qui tam suit
United States Attorney’s Office for Northern District of Georgia
Attorney General Sam Olens announced reached settlement
“This settlement demonstrates our office’s continued commitment to protect crucial Medicare and Medicaid dollars,”
said United States Attorney Sally Quillian Yates
“Treatment of cancer is expensive, and Medicare and Medicaid dollars should be reserved for patients who need services that properly may be billed to these programs.”
“Our investigation of Emory University revealed the institution’s clinical trial false billing and led to today’s settlement,”
said Derrick L. Jackson, Special Agent in Charge of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General for Atlanta region
“Protecting Medicare — and taxpayer dollars — remains a top priority.”
Mark F. Giuliano, Special Agent in Charge, FBI Atlanta Field Office, stated:
“Federal funds, to include those of Medicare and Medicaid, are limited and are to be used as intended”
“The FBI will continue to play a role in enforcing federal law that governs the use of these much needed funds.”
Attorney General Sam Olens stated,
“Cancer research is paramount to saving and extending lives”
“However, strict rules govern the use of Georgia Medicaid dollars”
“My office takes seriously its obligation to ensure that these resources are used properly.”
Case investigated by:
1. Federal Bureau of Investigation
2. Georgia Medicaid Fraud Control Unit
3. United States Attorney’s Office for Northern District of Georgia
4. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Office of Inspector General
Civil settlement reached by Assistant United States Attorney Darcy F. Coty
For further information please contact U.S. Attorney’s Public Affairs Office at USAGAN.PressEmails@usdoj.gov
Internet address for HomePage for U.S. Attorney’s Office for Northern District of Georgia http://www.justice.gov/usao/gan.
Emory Settlement Agreement ====================================== 5/24/1993 – Court Testimony Of Nicholas Patronas, MD:
—————————————————————— Pg. 122
—————————————————————— “We have done– we have an experimental protocol at the NIH where we inject a chemotherapeutic agent through the carotid artery, the artery that goes to the brain, and we have three survivals with this technique, by providing massive amounts of chemotherapeutic drugs to the brain that harbors the tumor“
“And we destroy the tumor, but we destroy a large part of the brain as well, and the patients became severely handicapped, and a life that’s not worth living“
—————————————————————— Pg. 123
—————————————————————— “And so I have three cases with this particular experimental protocol which resulted in killing the tumor, but a large part of the healthy brain as well“
“So overall the protocol was abandoned and is not any more in effect because of the serious side effects that we witnessed”
—————————————————————— Nicholas J. Patronas National Institutes of Health(NIH) http://www.cc.nih.gov/drd/staff/nicholas_patronas.html
—————————————————————— Sharon Hill, you’re just a footnote to this article, because all you did was “cut-and-paste”, and try to pass off David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., FACS and Bob Blaskiewicz as “reliable sources”
You’ve gotta be kidding me !!!
—————————————————————— P.S. A fifth-grader can “cut-and-paste”
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. email@example.com
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
 – September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
====================================== BB – Bob Blaskiewicz
—————————————————————— DJT – Didymus Judas Thomas
—————————————————————— BB – “Ummm, o-kay”
“Uh, I want to turn this over to the people who are watching”
“Um, I want to give them a a chance to address you as well”
“Uhmmm, hi everyone”
—————————————————————— BB – “A every time that I and and and and, and David (James @StortSkeptic the Skeptic Canary) points this out, that um, you you know you’re not going to speculate about the the FDA but then at every turn you’re invoking the FDA as being obstructionist“
—————————————————————— BB – “I, I just find that to be contradictory and and self-defeating“
====================================== DJT – Bob, exactly where did I invoke “the FDA as being obstructionist” ?
—————————————————————— BB – “Um, it’s it’s it’s not the FDA’s, but you understand it’s not the FDA’s job to tell someone that their drug doesn’t work“
—————————————————————— BB – “it’s it’s it’s up to Burzynski“
“It’s up to Burzynski to show that his drug does work”
“And it’s always been his burden of proof“
“He’s the one that’s been claiming this miracle cancer cure, forever”
====================================== DJT – Bob, Burzynski showed and proved what he needed to prove to the FDA in order to do phase 2 clinical trials, 9/3/2004 – FDA granted “orphan drug designation” (“ODD”) for Antineoplastons (A10 & AS2-1 Antineoplaston) for treatment of patients with brain stem glioma, .10/30/2008 – FDA granted “orphan drug designation” (“ODD”) for Antineoplastons (A10 and AS2-1 Antineoplaston) for treatment of gliomas, and FDA approved phase 3 [1-2]
Oh, and Bob, exactly when did Burzynski 1st claim “this miracle cancer cure” ?
—————————————————————— BB – “Um, that we’d love to see, however we can’t see, however we can’t see it because of proti protri proprietary uh protections that the FDA is giving to Burzynski, right ?”
“They’re not sharing his trial designs because they are his trial designs, right ?”
“That the makeup of his drug that he’s distributing are his, uh design, and his intellectual property“
“So the FDA is protecting him, uh from outside scrutiny“
====================================== DJT – Bob, you make it sound like it’s part of some grand “conspiracy” between Burzynski and the FDA to keep information from “The Skeptics™” 
Subpart F–Confidentiality of Information
Confidentiality of data and information in an investigational new drug notice for a biological product
(a) The existence of an IND notice for a biological product will not be disclosed by the Food and Drug Administration unless it has previously been publicly disclosed or acknowledged
====================================== BB – “While you may imagine that that, that that the FDA is is somehow antagonistic toward him“
“They’ve given him every opportunity, over 60 opportunities to prove himself worth uh their confidence and hasn’t“
====================================== DJT – Bob, that certainly explains the 9/3/2004 and .10/30/2008 ODD’s and phase 3 clinical trial approvals by the FDA – NOT [1-2]
—————————————————————— BB – “I don’t, the thing is though that, that that’s a inver, shifting the burden of proof off of Burzynski”
“Burzynski has to prove them wrong, has to prove him right”
“The FDA is not there to say this doesn’t work”
====================================== DJT – Bob, who initiated and put into place the clinical trial hold ?
—————————————————————— BB – “So, I mean, honestly, um, saying “Well, when the F, FDA tells you that it doesn’t work, the FDA’s never gonna say that because that’s not their job“
—————————————————————— BB – “That’s not an option, because they’re never gonna do it“
“They relinquish, a lot of authority, over to Burzynski, and his Institutional Review Board, which, I would mention, has failed 3 reviews in a row” ====================================== Bob, where are the “final reports” for those “3 reviews” ? ====================================== BB – “Right ?”
“It is Burzynski’s job to be convincing”
“It is not our uh, uh, it it it he hasn’t produced in decades“
“In hundreds and hundreds of patients, who’ve payed to be on this”
“Hell, we’d we’d we’d like a prelim, well when you’re talking about something that is so difficult as brainstem glioma, that type of thing gets, really does in the publishing stream get fast-tracked there”
====================================== DJT – Bob, Burzynski has provided numerous phase 2 clinical trial preliminary reports, which our #fave oncologist has chosen to ignore 
====================================== BB – “they test it”
“Yeah, and they they they want uh, that was evidence of fast-tracking is what, that rejection was uh e was very quickly“
====================================== DJT – Bob, have you checked The Lancet Oncology  to see what was so much more important than Burzynski’s “phase 2 clinical trial Progression-Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) re patients 8 – 16 years after diagnosis, results”  and the Japanese antineoplaston study ? 
====================================== BB – “So, how long will it be before Burzynski doesn’t publish, that you decide that uh perhaps he’s he‘s, doesn’t have the goods ?“
“Um, so, uh, uh again, the FDA is not the arbiter of this“
“It’s ultimately Burzynski”
“You’ve been speculating about what the FDA’s motivation are like crazy”
“Why not speculate about Burzynski a little bit”
====================================== DJT – Well, how have I been speculating ?
—————————————————————— BB – “Well actually I’m not even asking you to speculate about Burzynski, I’m only asking you to tell me, how long would it take, uh how, for him to go unpublished like this, um, for this long, before you would doubt it ?” ====================================== DJT – Note how, above, without proving it, Bob claimed “at every turn you’re invoking the FDA as being obstructionist”, and now, directly above, again, without proving it, Bob claims “You’ve been speculating about what the FDA’s motivation are like crazy” —————————————————————— DJT – what the journals keep saying, in response
====================================== BB – “What ?”
====================================== DJT – You know, are they going to give The Lancet response, like they did in 2 hours and such, saying, “Well, we think your message would be best heard elsewhere,”or they gonna gonna give The Lancet response of, “Well, we don’t have room in our publication this time, well, because we’re full up, so, try and pick another place”?
====================================== BB – “But these but but but that doesn’t have any bearing on“
“Oh I’m not asking you how long, how long, would it take you for you to start doubting whether or not he has the goods ?“
“How long would it take ?”
“It’s a it’s a it’s a question that should be answered by a number uh uh months ?“
“How long ?”
“It’s been 15 years already”
====================================== DJT – Well, you like to jump up and down with the “15 year” quote, but then again I always get back to, Hey, it’s when, when the report, when the clinical trial is done
—————————————————————— DJT – Not that he’s been practicing medicine medicine for 36 years, or whatever, it’s when the clin, clinical trial was done
====================================== BB – “I could push it back to 36 years”
“He hasn’t shown that it works for 36 years”
“I can do that”
“I was being nice” ====================================== DJT – Note how Bob acts like he’s been hit with “The Stupid Stick”
If he wants to go back “36 years”, I can refer back to 1991 (11/15/1991) – Michael J. Hawkins, M.D., Chief, Investigational Drug Branch, Department of Health &Human Services (HHS), Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute (NCI), sent a 1 page Memorandum Re:
Antineoplaston to Decision Network, which advised, in part:
“It was the opinion of the site visit team that antitumor activity was documented in this best case series and that the conduct of Phase II trials was indicated to determine the response rate” —————————————————————— DJT – The FDA A believes there is evidence of efficacy
====================================== BB – “Perhaps based on bad phase 2”
====================================== DJT – Well, we don’t know that
We don’t have the Freedom of Information Act information —————————————————————— DJT – Remember, Bob is the one who told me during the 9/28/2013 Google+ Burzynski Discussion Hangout:
“You’re you’re you’re assuming”
“You’re you’re you’re assuming that”
“You’re assuming that”
“Um, I’m not assuming that”
“There is a correct answer here”
“You don’t know”
“You don’t know”
“You need to look into it”
“Before you dismiss it you have to look into it”
“Everytime somebody throws uh uh something to me, I have to look into it”
“That’s just, it’s my responsibility as a reader”
“T t and what I would honestly expect and hope, is that you would be honest about this, to yourself, and and and that’s the thing we don’t, we often don’t realize that we’re not being honest with ourself“
“I try to fight against it, constantly”
Bob just ASSUMED that the FDA approved phase 3 clinical trials for Burzynski “Perhaps based on bad phase 2”, but tells me NOT to ASSUME ? ====================================== BB – “He withdrew”
“He withdrew the the phase 3 clinical trial”
“I that before recruiting,
although I’ve seen lots of people say they were on a phase 3 clinical trial“
“I wonder how that happened”
====================================== DJT – Well, we know what happened in the movie because Eric particularly covered that when they tried to get what, what, was it 200 or 300 something institutions to take on a phase 3, and they refused
—————————————————————— BB – “Uh did do do you think that if they thought that he was a real doctor that they all would have refused like that ?“
====================================== DJT – Well, Eric gave the reasons that they said they would not take a particular uh phase 3
And so using that excuse that you you just gave there, I’m not even gonna buy that one, because that’s not one of the reasons —————————————————————— Note how Bob pulls out the old “if they thought that he was a real doctor” line ?
Is Bob now claiming that Burzynski is NOT even a “real doctor” ? ====================================== BB – “He’s changed things”
====================================== DJT – Eric said they gave
====================================== BB – “That The Lancet is a top-tier journal like New England Journal of Medicine“
“It’s basically be, besieged by uh 100′s of people submitting their, their, their reports”
“Um, it’s just, you know, let’s say he, someone has such a thin publishing record as Burzynski does, do you think that it’s likely that he will ever get in a top-tier journal ?“
“What about the the Public Library of Science?”
“It’s not the only journal there”
“What about BMC Cancer ?”
“There’s lots of places that he can go”
====================================== DJT – We’ll I’m
====================================== BB – “Um, and he doesn’t seem to to have evailed himself of that, as far as I can tell“
“And I would know because he’d get rejected, or he’d be crowing, you know”
—————————————————————— BB – “Either way, he’s gonna tell us what happens”
“He told us what happened with The Lancet, you know”
“I don’t have any evidence that suggests to me that he’s even trying” ====================================== Note how Bob refers to Burzynski’s numerous publications as “such a thin publishing record”
Bob, do I need to count all of these for you ?  —————————————————————— DJT – Well, I’m, I’m sure that they’re going to keep you appraised just like they have in the past, just like Eric has done in the past
I mean, we’ll see what happens with the Japanese study 
====================================== BB – “So let’s go back to this”
“How long will it take ?”
“How long will it take before you, the Japanese study’s interesting too because we should be able to find that in the Japanese science databases, and we can find, we can’t find it at all“
“We can’t find it anywhere”
“And, and those are in English, so it’s not a language problem“
“We can’t find that anywhere”
“We asked Rick Schiff, for, for that study”
“And, and it hasn’t come to us“
“He is now I believe on the Board of Directors, over there”
—————————————————————— BB – “He should have access to this”
“We can’t get it”
====================================== Bob, did you ask:
1. Annals of Oncology 2010;21:viii221 ?
2. European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), Colorectal cancer, Abstract: 3558, May 17, 2010 ?
3. Colorectal Cancer Association of Canada, COLORECTAL CANCER RESEARCH, Month Ending June 19, 2009
11. Antineoplaston Therapy Doubles 5-Year Survival Rate Following Curative Resection of Hepatic Mets (May 27/09) pg. 5 of 20 ?
4. Kurume University School of Medicine (Japan) Department of Surgery ?
5. Hideaki Tsuda ? 
====================================== BB – “How how long will it take before you recognize that, nothing is forthcoming ?”
“How long would that take ?”
====================================== DJT – Well that’s like me asking “How long is it going to take for y’all’s, y’all‘s Skeptics to respond to my questions ?”
Because y’all haven’t been forthcoming
====================================== BB – “Well, I mean, were talking about a blog here“
“We’re talking about life”
“No, we’re talking about a blogger’s feelings in that case“
“In in this case we’re talking about, 1,000′s of patients, over the course of of of generations, you know”
“This is important stuff”
“This is not eh eh equating what’s happening to to patients with what’s happening to you is is completely off-kilter as far as I can tell“
“It’s nothing like you not getting to say something on my web-site”
“This is they they have thrown in with Burzynski, and they’ve trusted him, and he’s produced nothing“
“Nothing of substance”
—————————————————————— BB – “Nothing that that has made all of that um, uh, n nothing th th th that uh his peers would take seriously”
“The other thing that that that strikes me now is that, you know, you you you you keep saying that, well Eric is going to to share things with you”
“Does it ever concern you eh uh eh occur to you that Eric might not be reliable ?” ====================================== Bob, do you want to have a contest to determine which of you is more “reliable” ? ====================================== DJT – Well, he gave you The Lancet information and he posted the e-mail in the movie, and Josephine Jones posted a copy of it 
====================================== BB – “He then, and then he”
“And then he he, you know, the the the the dialogue that sprung up around that was, well see, he’s never going to get to get published”
“Well you’re just setting yourself up for wish fulfillment”
“You want him to be, persecuted, so you are ecstatic when he doesn’t get to publish, which is unfortunate for all the cancer patients, who really thought that one day, all the studies were going to be published”
====================================== DJT – Well, y’all are free to, you know, claim that all you want, because I don’t always agree with Eric, and uh, he’s free to express his opinion
====================================== BB – “Where has Eric been wrong ?”
====================================== DJT – Well I don’t necessarily believe, what Eric would say about, you know, The Lancet that refused to publish the 2nd one, for the reasons he stated, and which y’all have commented on, including Gorski
You know, I don’t necessarily agree with that
I am more agreeable to y’all, saying that, you know, they’re busy, they’ve got other things to do, but I’m kind of still laughing at their 1st response which he showed in the movie about how they felt about, you know his results would be better in some other publication
I thought that was kind of a ridiculous response to give someone
====================================== BB – “It’s it’s it’s it’s a form letter“
“They’re just saying, “No thanks””
““Thanks, but no thanks” is what they were saying, in the most generic way possible”
“Like I said, they’re besieged by researchers trying to publish“
====================================== DJT – Well you would think that if its a form letter they would use the same form that they used the 2nd time
You know, they didn’t use the same wording that they used the 1st time
I would have think that, you know, their 2nd comment
====================================== BB – “So, so, possibly”
“So possibly what you are saying is that they in fact have read it, and after having read it they’ve rejected it”
“Is that what you’re saying ?”
“Because that’s what peer-review is”
====================================== DJT – Nah, I’m not saying that they did that all
I’m just sayin’, you know, that they gave, 2 different responses, and I would think that the 2nd one they gave
====================================== BB – “Do you know it was the same editor, that it came from the same desk ?”
“You can’t make that assumption that that the form letter will be the same form letter every time”
“I mean you just can’t“
“I mean in in some ways we have a lot of non-information that you’re filling in, with what you expect, as as opposed to what’s actually really there, and I I I just think you’re putting too much uh stock in one uh, uh, in in in in this uh the publication kerfuffle“
—————————————————————— BB – “Um”
====================================== DJT – Well I find it funny, something along the lines of, you know, “We believe your message would be received better elsewhere, you know
I don’t see that as a normal response, a scientific publication would send to someone trying to publish something
I mean, to me that sounds, like, if you’re doing that, and you’re The Lancet Oncology, maybe you need to set some different procedures in place, ‘cuz you would think that with such a great scientific peer-reviewed magazine, that they would have structured things in as far as how they do their operations
====================================== BB – “Well, not necessarily“
“I’ve been in any # of professional groups where the organization is just not optimal, and publications certainly th there are all sorts of pressures from all sorts of different places”
—————————————————————— BB – “I I have no problems whatsoever with seeing that this might not be completely uh um uh streamlining uniform processes as possible“
“The fact that it’s not uniform, doesn’t have anything to do with Burzynski not publishing, not producing good data”
“Not just going to a, you know, god, even if, even if, let’s put it this way, even if he went to a pay to play type publication where you have to pay in order to get your manuscript accepted; and he has the money to do this, it wouldn’t take that much, and he were to put out a good protocol, and he were to show us his data, and he would make his, his his stuff accessible to us, then we could validate it, then we could look at it and say, “Yeah, this is good,” or “No, this is the problem, you have to go back and you have to fix this””
“So we really, every time we talk about the letter that he got, yeah that doesn’t have much to do with anything, really”
—————————————————————— BB – “We wanna see the frickin’ data”
“And if he had a cure for some cancers that otherwise don’t have reliable treatments, he has an obligation to get that out there anyway he can“
“And if if peer-review doesn’t, you know, play a, if peer-review can’t do it, you know, isn’t fast enough for him, then he should take it to the web, and he should send copies out to every pediatric, uh, you know, oncologist that there is“
“That’s the way to do it”
====================================== DJT – Well, I’m sure, I’m sure Gorski would have a comment about that, as he’s commented previously about how he thinks uh Burzynskishould publish
—————————————————————— BB – “It’s the, it’s the data itself“
“If if Burzynski is is, is confident in his data, he will put it out there“
“One way or the other”
====================================== DJT – Like I said before
Like I said before on my blog, you know, even if Burzynski publishes his phase 2 information, Gorski can just jump up and down and say, “Well, that just shows evidence of efficacy, you know, it’s not phase 3, so it doesn’t really prove it”
—————————————————————— DJT – So then he can go on, you know, for however many years he wants to
—————————————————————— BB – “Um, almost no treatment goes out without trials“
“Massive amounts of data are required” ====================================== Bob, do you think that’s the 2.5 million pages of clinical trial data that Fabio said Burzynski sent to the FDA ?  ====================================== 2:02:00
—————————————————————— BB – “Uh, in in in that sense, you know, uh all the the the, you know, kind of back-peddling and and and trying to defend him is is going to, not going to help his case at all“
====================================== Bob, exactly where did I exhibit any “kind of back-peddling” ?
BB – “You are, honestly as far as I can tell you are doing the um, you know, you’re you’re ah throwing up uh, uh, uh, you’re giving me another uh invisible dragon in the garage, um”
====================================== DJT – Well y’all, y’all can call things what y’all want
I mean, y’all can give these, fallacy arguments and all that garbage that y’all like, because that’s what y’all like to talk about instead of dealing with the issues
I mean, Gorski doesn’t want to deal with the issues
—————————————————————— BB – “Okay, so”
“What you’re telling me is that you trust the FDA to to be able to tell you when he’s not doing, good science, but also that you don’t trust the FDA”
“Do you see an inherent conflict there ?”
====================================== DJT – How did I say I, I didn’t trust them ?
====================================== BB – “Well, when I, whenever I would ask about, like, why would these trials aren’t happening uh and, you know, you say well the the FDA’s arranged it“
“The FDA’s in control”
“They sign off on these things”
“But they’re they’re they’re they’re at the same that they’re, they’re trustworthy they’re also not trustworthy depending on what you need for the particular argument at the time“
—————————————————————— BB – “You’re suggesting that they’re untrustworthy”
====================================== DJT – No, I’m just sayin’ that I’ve raised questions and none of The Skeptics wanna to uh talk about ‘em 
====================================== BB – “Do you know that the FDA pulled out of the prosecution ?”
“Did you know that the FDA pulled out of the prosecution um of his criminal case, because they were backing a researcher ?” ====================================== Bob, would that “researcher” be Dvorit D. Samid, who was in Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business (Part I) ? —————————————————————— DJT – Well, we know a lot stuff they did, but that still doesn’t impress me that they pulled out of the prosecution
====================================== BB – “Yeah, the the the it wasn’t the FDA who was pressing charges, it was a Federal prosecutor“
====================================== DJT – Right
====================================== BB – “Right”
“And and, they declined to provide information that the prosecution needed“
“That that that’s really important“
“That he has been given the benefit of the doubt, and he has come up wanting, for decades now”
====================================== DJT – Well I find it interesting a lot of this uh, a lot of these letters that were provided between, you know, the government and Burzynski, when the uh phase 2 study was going on, at the behest of the NCI
You know, anybody who reads that stuff knows, that when you just ignore the person that’s been doing, do treating their patients for 20 something years, or close to 20 years, and you change the protocol without his approval, and you don’t use the drugs in the manner that he knows works
—————————————————————— BB – “One of the interesting things about Doubting Thomas that I think you should definitely consider for yourself, is that at some point, when faced with the real opportunity to prove or disprove his assertions, he doubted himself”
“And that’s important”
“And that’s where you’re falling short in the analogy”
====================================== DJT – Well, I think The Skeptics, Skeptics are falling short because, you know, they don’t own up to
====================================== BB – “I’ve laid out exactly what it would take for me to turn on a fucking dime”
“I have, I have made it abundantly clear what I need“
“Gorski has made it abundantly clear”
“Everybody else, Guy, and David, and Josephine Jones, uh, the Morgans, all of them have made it abundantly clear, what it would take to change our minds, and you’ve never done that”
—————————————————————— BB – “And even in this, this was an opportunity to do that“
“To come up with a basis for understanding, where it’s like, you know what, If we can show this, you know, if we can show a this guy, that, that, there, that his standards are not being met, then, you know, we could possibly have some sort of ongoing dialogue after this”
====================================== DJT – So I can say that since the Mayo Clinic (Correction: M.D. Anderson) finished their study in 2006, and it took them until 2013, to actually publish it, then I can say, well, Burzynski finished his in 2009, which was 3 years later, which would give Burzynski until 2016
====================================== BB – “Why wasn’t that study”
====================================== DJT – for me to make up my mind (laughing)
====================================== BB – “Why wasn’t that, that that that, still . . again, it it doesn’t seem really to to approach the the the, main question here“
“You know, um . . what are the standards that you have that it isn’t, what are your standards to show that it isn’t efficacious ?“
====================================== DJT – Well I can say, well I’m going to have to wait, the same amount of time I had to wait for Mayo (Correction: M.D. Anderson) to publish their study; which was from 2006 to 2013
====================================== BB – “Why was the Mayo”
“Why was the Mayo (Correction: M.D. Anderson) study delayed ?” ====================================== Note how Bob ASSUMES that the publishing of the final results of the M.D. Anderson study were delayed —————————————————————— DJT – How do you know it was delayed ?
====================================== BB – “Well you said you had so many years before you finish it and go in”
====================================== DJT – I mean, has anybody
====================================== BB – “Why, why did it take so long ?“
====================================== DJT – done a review of when a clinical trial is studied, and completed, and how long it took the people to publish it ?
If they could point to me a study that’s done that, and say, well here’s the high end, here’s the low end of the spectrum, here’s the middle
====================================== BB – “I have something for you, okay ?”
“Send me that”
“Could you send me that study the way that it was published because um, just just send me the final study, um, to my e-mail address”
====================================== DJT – Sure
====================================== BB – “Um, because, I can ask that question of those researchers, why was this study in this time, and what happened in-between”
—————————————————————— BB – “Why did it take so long for it, for it to come out”
====================================== DJT – Sure, but that’s not gonna, you know like, answer an overall question of, you know, somebody did a comparative study of all clinical trials, and, when they were finished, and at, and when the study was actually published afterwards
You know, that’s only gonna be one, particular clinical study
====================================== BB – “Right”
“Um, but it it would, perhaps, answer the question; because you’re using it as an example on the basis of which to dismiss criticism, whether or not, uh, it is the standard, and therefor you’re allowed to accept that Burzynski hasn’t published until 2016, or, um, it’s an anomaly, which is also a possibility, that most stuff comes out more quickly“
====================================== DJT – Well, we know that the Declaration of Helsinki doesn’t even give a standard saying, “You must publish within x amount of years,” you know ?
So, I’ve yet to find a Skeptic who posted something that said, “Here are the standards, published here”
—————————————————————— BB – “I I, yeah, the other thing that David James points out is you know, why 2016 when he’s had 36 years already ?“
====================================== DJT – Again, we get back to, when the clinical trial is finished, not when Burzynski started
====================================== BB – “Treating people”
====================================== DJT – I mean, you would expect to find a results to be published after, the final results are in
====================================== BB – “You would expect the Burzynski Patient Group to be a lot bigger after 36 years, and in fact is
====================================== DJT – You would expect some people would want to have confidentiality, and maybe not want to be included
====================================== BB – “So, if you’re unsure about this stuff, if you’re unsure about the the time to publication, why are you defending it so hard, other than saying, “I don’t know, I really need to”
====================================== DJT – Why am I unsure ?
====================================== BB – “Uh about the
====================================== DJT – (laughing) I just gave you an example
====================================== BB – “The reasons, the reasons for which that he’s, no, why are you defending him so hard, when you’re unsure ?
====================================== DJT – Oh, who said I was unsure ?
I just gave you an example
—————————————————————— Note how Bob ASSUMES that I’m “unsure” when I had the same answer since 0:32:07 
All comments by Professor Robert J. (Bob) Blaskiewicz of University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire “fame” should be considered as likely LIES until such time as he keeps his word to respond on this blog, to criticism of him on this blog
—————————————————————— “I hope somebody is writing all this down out there, so that we can go back and look at these claims later, right ?”
—————————————————————— Seriously, Bob ?
Do you really think one of “The Skeptics™” was going to write all this down, when none of them showed that they had written down much of anything of much note about Burzynski 2 when they attended the screenings ? 🙂
—————————————————————— *Some words may or may not be missing, but it doesn’t take away from the final result
I will be adding separate critiques that break this down into manageable parts, but wanted to have entire video comments altogether here
—————————————————————— Are you there ?
—————————————————————— Okay, we might as well get started if were going to do this
—————————————————————— Alright, so ummm I guess we can start with uhhh bit of a conversation 
You’ve been on the Burzynski Hashtag for a long time – what’s you’re motivation ?
Well as I put in my about page, I agreed with the juror that he was neither guilty or innocent 
So, so since I see all this opposition by these Skeptics, and I see that the they’re getting all of their facts straight
(Freudian sarcasm slip)
I decided to take the position of being a Skeptic Skeptic
In other words I am skeptical of Skeptics who do not fact-check their information before they post it on social media
And since I see ahhh y’all pretty much trying to take over the net with y’all’s information I decided to come back and correct all the false information that was being put out by other Skeptics
—————————————————————— So what information have Skeptics posted that they uhhh that they missed that demonstrates that Burzynski’s uhhh treatments are effective ?
—————————————————————— What, what have we missed ?
Well the major issue is that the FDA’s own information says if phase 3 trials are approved – phase 2 trials is to see if there’s evidence of effectiveness
And so if phase 3 trials are approved, that means you’ve provided evidence of effectiveness
That’s the FDA’s own information – I have that clearly on my blog 
Also the FDA has given Burzynski uhhh Orphan Drug Designation in 2004 for uhhh brainstem glioma and then in 2009 for all gliomas 
So that must mean that there is evidence of effectiveness, otherwise I don’t think they would be doing that
—————————————————————— Well okay, uh one of the issues that Skeptics have with Burzynski is that in order to, let’s say, elevate uh the profile of his drug, in order to make sure that everybody who needs it can get, is to complete a phase 3 uh trial uh he started uh I believe was it just the one, right ?
Uhmmm, and that’s gone nowhere
In fact, it was withdrawn this I think within the last week
It doesn’t look like its going to happen, and this is, you know, for all the the phase 1 and phase 2 trials, those are very preliminary trials
—————————————————————— Uhmmm, the phase 3 is is will be the gold standard, and also the bare minimum that that the larger medical community will accept uhhh as evidence, so it’s like you’ve lowered the bar for for evidence in a way that that you know oncologists don’t
Well the issue is he was given 2 phase 3 trials that we know of
One was on uh Clinical Trials . gov – the one about eye cancer
—————————————————————— The the
The vision cancer
And then the other one was not posted on there, but then again the FDA has said, and I posted this on my blog because I specifically contacted and asked them and they said we don’t post all clinical trials on our web-site 
—————————————————————— (Correction: NCI)
And so he obviously had that other one about brainstem glioma, that he was trying to get started 
But the other issue is that Skeptics have posted on there that he could not get that accelerated approval until he had published a phase 2 trial and that is exactly not the case because other drugs have been given accelerated approval before their results were published in phase 2 clinical trial publications, cuz, so that question remains as well 
—————————————————————— So, do you think that there is a uh uh conspiracy to keep Burzynski from publishing ?
Well, what we do know is that in the movie, Merola showed that one page rejection from The Lancet
where Burzynski was trying to show his results from like 8 to 16 years, and they said we think your uh publication would be seen best elsewhere, or some ridiculous statement like that
And so, I thought that funny of The Lancet
Of course, I understand their 2nd response, which came out, which Eric posted on his Facebook page, y’all, that y’all have talked about – that, you know, they’re busy, they get a lot of
I understand that, so obviously he would have to look for a different publication for both of those, things he’s trying to get published
—————————————————————— Clarification: Burzynski and Tsuda
So, uhmmm, as far as I understand it The Lancet, uhhh the the question of The Lancet publication ehhh is par for the course, that most people are, when they get a speedy rejection from a uh uh, uh journal, are actually uh grateful, because that means there allowed to go ahead and submit their material to another journal more quickly and get it out there
Uhm, but the reaction that we saw on the side of the Burzynski camp was that, see, they’ll never publish us
—————————————————————— Uhm, which is, eg, taken as far as I can tell as evidence of a conspiracy or that his name is is poison uh I mean, I think it is, but uhmmm, that wasn’t indicated in the in the rejection letter in order to uh claim that it is is to go beyond the evidence which again we’re not really willing to do
So, uhmmm what is the the ration the the something that I think a lot of of a lot of The Skeptics have been curious about when it comes to your your your blog and your behavior on-line uhhh is that that that, that the format of your blog does not make sense to us, we don’t understand exactly what you’re trying to do with it
Could you kind of clarify that for us because it’s uhhh long and it’s it’s intense and there’s a lot of emotion behind it but we don’t understand exactly, what it’s supposed to mean
Well a lot of the time I’m making fun of y’all’s favorite oncologist, the way he words his blogs, and uhmmm I cite specifically from the FDA, from from the National Cancer Institute, from these other scientific sources, from scientific publications
I give people specific information so they can fact-check me, unlike a lot of The Skeptics who just go out there and say things and publish things on social media, they provide no back-up for their uhhh sayings
And so when I critique an oncologist or any other Skeptic I always provide source material so people can always fact-check me and I specifically said that people should fact-check everything ummm that the oncologist should say because he has, I’ve proven him to be frequently incorrect about his information and misleading
And so I’ve tried to add those things and allow people to search, on specific things like publications, or what I posted about The Lancet, or specifically about The Skeptics, or specifically about the oncologist
So whenever I see something posted new on Twitter, by y’all, sometimes I’ll check it out and sometimes I won’t, and sometimes I’ll comment on it
—————————————————————— Alright, ah have you read The Other Burzynski Patient Group ?
I was, on there just yesterday to see some more of your post on there 
—————————————————————— So, ahmmm what is your response say to the story of Amelia Saunders ?
Well the thing is, when you accepted this hangout, I published my newest blog article and I specifically listed all the information I had critiqued from you previously including Amelia, and I posted the specific Twitter responses by BurzynskiMovie; which is probably Eric, to your issues with Amelia, and he disagrees with what the oncologist posted, and so I pretty much let his Twitter responses stand to what the oncologist said 
—————————————————————— Okay, what part of, what did I get wrong ?
Well I also did a critique of the newspaper story that was put out about Amelia in the U.K. 
And they had 2, 2 patients that were dealt with
—————————————————————— Uh was that Amelia and Luna ?
I believe, yes
—————————————————————— Luna was the other one, correct
And one of the patients, Burzynski has specifically published in one of his scientific publications that maximum dosage is not reached for a month
So if someone, so if someone only goes in there and has treatment for a month, they’re not even, you know, they’re finally going to reach the uh maximum dosage 
And I think that was maybe the case with Luna, I think she was only there for a month
Oh, I, you’re talking, oh this is one of the very 1st ones that we did on the, on the site
Uhmmm, oh, her name is, her name escapes me at the moment
Um, but she wasn’t there for for very long but uh her condition deteriorated very rapidly
Uhmmm, and one of the questions that we had, we raised, is is, you know, you you don’t need to reach full dosage ’cause the the full dosage for these ANP seem to be pretty high, at least the sodium load that that that patients are asked to to carry, or required to carry if they they go on it
And we wondered if the sodium load was ah to great for someone who has a brain tumor, I mean uh, you know uh sodium load will increase your blood pressure, and these people have extra things in their brains that probably won’t react well to swelling, right, and and wont react well to pressure, so we were wondering, if in fact you don’t have to reach the full dosage in order to have uh severe side effects
—————————————————————— Ummm, you know maybe you haven’t reached a therapeutic dose level, but that doesn’t mean that it didn’t have an effect on her
And you can clearly tell, that, you know in the videos, well at least the videos before the family took it down, that she was lethargic and a little bit out of it, she uh the the difference in her conscious state was no noticeable for anyone to see
Ummm, to, you know where she had been up and about to in her bed kind of slurring and and, and and and, in fact just disoriented, just looked like someone had taken the piss out of her
—————————————————————— I mean, ummm, so that’s, that one, ummm, you know the critique that, reaching therapeutic levels and having a biological effect on someone are are clearly different things in her case
Uhmmm, now I never went on you know on to say ummm that uh she had uh reached therapeutic levels
Uhmmm, I I think as far as I went was that she went, she paid her $30,000 dollars and then she died
Uhmmm, and and and what part of that’s not true
Well my only thing is, uh, we know that sometimes he will go to a maximum dosage, or you know, the suggested dosage, but he will back down off it, in fact in the uh adverse effects you mentioned those are specifically adverse effects mentioned in his publications, and when that happens normally they will subside within 24 to 48 hours is what it says once you take them off the treatment and let, you know, those conditions take care of themselves, and then you will slowly raise the medication again 
So, you know, it just didn’t tell, if only one month of treatment was enough to even start to do anything for her 
—————————————————————— Okay, so, um, going back to Amelia, um, some of the the most um I think the most serious charges is that we see a uh repeatedly in his uh uh stories of his patients, um those are all cited, those are all backed uh by, you know, um at least as good as anything the Burzynski Patient Group has ever done
—————————————————————— Uhmmm, something that we see over and over are patients reporting over and over that signs of getting worse are signs if getting better
Um, in particular a, uh report that’s very common from from patients is that the center of their solid tumors are breaking up
One of the problems that we we we see is that that is more frequently a sign of ischemic necrosis that the tumor has outgrown its blood supply and that it’s dying on the inside
And when you see something like a 5th of the patients who we’ve been able to to document, reporting this excitedly, we get extremely concerned about what’s happening
—————————————————————— Uhmmm, what part of that is not absolutely terrifying to you
Well the thing is, the FDA has approved phase 3 <strongand also given them the Orphan Drug Designation, which means they should have some knowledge about what’s going on, I would think 
Plus we don’t know for sure, we’ve heard about, ummm, some of the things supposedly the oncologist has talked about, which is cutting off the blood flow, to the tumor, which is something that some uhhh drugs can do, and I think that’s one of the things Burzynski has tried to do, ah he’s specifically mentioned it in his personalized treatment
But I don’t know for sure if it’s also something that’s done with the ANP’s in just the clinical trials environment
So, that could be a possibility
—————————————————————— Well, the the yeah I’ve never seen anyone say that the purpose of the antineoplastons is to cause uhhh, you know, to restrict the blood flow to the tumor and and and uh cause it to die that way, which is certainly one therapeutic approach that’s been, that’s been floated and research has been done on uh and might even be promising and uh what he’s saying is that cancer is caused by a lack of antineoplastons in the system and that basically what he is doing is antineoplaston uh uh supplement therapy uh rath, what’s the word I’m looking for, uhm uh, replacement therapy
Uh and there isn’t a doctor on the planet, uh not a medical specialist on the planet, who, I, who has identified at at as a contributing factor as a contributor to cancer or antineo or lack of antineoplastons
—————————————————————— Why isn’t he, you know, you understand that these doctors, ummm like nothing is true or false because a doctor says it is true or false
—————————————————————— Uhmmm it’s it’s it but when the entire medical community uhhh who are des are desperately are are every bit as tired of seeing patients die uhmmm and seeing patients suffer or as anyone else’s families are you you imagine what an oncologist sees in that office over the course of of a year and there’s going to be unimaginable suffering
I’m sure that they’re tired of that
And that they would, you know, that if there was the slightest hint that antineoplaston deficiency was a cause of cancer that it would make it into the literature, with or without Burzynski
—————————————————————— Uhhh ummm, why should we trust him when he has uh the sole uh the only person who had identified antineoplastons as a contributor to cancer when he is the sole manufacturer of the of the therapy uh when he is the uh sole prescriber of the therapy and when he is, where the sole distributor of the therapy from his pharmacy
Well what I find interesting about these other doctors is like like the doctors mentioned in the movie and BBC Panorama’s report and in some of these newspaper articles where they are mentioned again is that these doctors never do a review of Burzynski’s scientific publications and including our favorite oncologist who refuses to do so 
Oh yeah he says he’s read everything but uh you know he claims that he’s uhmmm reviewed, reviewed uh Burzynski’s personalized gene targeted therapy but he, but then just a few months ago he admitted, you know, I don’t know where Burzynski says which genes are targeted by antineoplastons 
And I pointed out which specific publications that Burzynski published, publications which specifically mention which genes are targeted by antineoplastons, and I said how can you claim that you’ve read and reviewed every Burzynski publication and you didn’t know which genes are targeted by antineoplastons when that’s specifically in the publications ? 
To me that tells me that you do not know how antineoplastons work be because you just admitted you don’t know which genes Burzynski talks about
I mean that’s just funny as heck to me that he would say that
—————————————————————— Can you go ahead and send me that link that that I saw in the chat that you had uh posted a couple of times in the chat
Could you send me that link, to that publication
I can give you a minute to to go find it if that’s
Well I’ve, I’ve got it on my blog
I mean I can forward it to you at some point
—————————————————————— That would be good
But I agree with you about I don’t remember seeing anything about antineoplastons cutting off the blood flow to the, you know the blood brain barrier for sure either
—————————————————————— Well, yeah that’s a, that’s you know one of the major problems that this this cancer has is the location is such a pain to get to
Uhm, and often when we are talking about these cancers, the thing that gets me over and over and over, and this is something that I’ve learned from from working uh with others on the Burzynski Patient Group is what’s it like to be a cancer patient, only by proxy, man I couldn’t imagine really going through this myself, and, you know I’d hate to see my family go through this
—————————————————————— That these people are at what could be described as a low point, they’re um uhhh, you get a diagnosis of uh brainstem glioma the prognosis is very bad
Uhmmm, there are only a few cases of people recovering from that, I mean they’re there uhm uhhh but, you know that it’s an, it’s an extremely grim prognosis
Uhhh and I worry that when they’re in that desperate state and especially let’s talk about the children, you have these kids who are uh you know 2 and 3 and have had this, you know uh awful diagnosis and the parents are willing to do literally anything to keep their kids alive
—————————————————————— What protections are in place for patients as far as that these kids are and and their parents are protected
Well I think i know the point that you’re getting at uhhh about the IRB’s and all that good stuff
All I can say is that, you know the FDA can come in with any amount of investigators and say that you did this or that but you have the opportunity to respond, and so they can pretty much say anything, it’s only when the final report comes out that you can take that to the bank
And so all this speculation about what a investigative team may say about the clinic is, to me just like someone going into a lawsuit and saying so-and-so did this, you know, can you prove that, you know, did so-and-so do that 
So it’s the same thing with the FDA, these um little reports, the final report is what counts, and so, also what I find interesting is some of Burzynski’s publications specifically said, you know this particular uh clinical trial, the IRB was agreed upon by the FDA 
Well if if the FDA agreed upon it, you know, then some questions should arise about exactly what did the FDA agree upon
What would we find out from a Freedom of Information Act request on that ?
And, and what I also found interesting is when I did research on other clinical trials for brainstem glioma I found, you know, all these other science based medicine studies where 374 children had died in their studies 
And what I found interesting is back in 1999, they reported on a clinical trial, they had better results then all these clinical trials afterwards 
—————————————————————— Who had the better results ?
Well, I would have to find you one, there were like 3
There were like 3 major ones that Burzynski has mentioned in his publications to cross-reference his trials versus their trials as far as the results
And so, I, there was one back in 1999 that had better results than a lot of these clinical trials that come afterwards
So when we talk about, you know, what’s really right for the patients well we can see that the drug companies want to test their drugs through clinical trials and, you know, and if your kid dies, well, unfortunately the kid dies
Even though we showed better results in 1999 with a different type of treatment, you would have thought that maybe they would have poured more investment into that particular treatment but that’s not necessarily how the clinical trial system works
—————————————————————— Hmmm, yeah, the, Guy Chapman has just um uh tossed in a a, a comment
I guess uh that there are a lot of people who wanna talk to you (laughter)
Uh, Guy Chapman has just jumped in and said it looks like you forgot the phase 3 trial is withdrawn and none of the phase 2 trials were published
Uhmmm, this, this is not a minor thing for for for Skeptics
This, this is exactly what will convince us to get on board the Burzynski train is the publication of these trials
But even the preliminary trials, one has been finished, and none has been published in its entirety for over 15 years
When you consider that this is a, as you just pointed out, this is a a cancer, the, especially the brainstem gliomas
That these cancers uh the cases resolved fairly quickly, we know what the outcome are fairly quickly
—————————————————————— Ummm, do you have any sense of when these trials are going to be published ?
Well here’s my point, I mean, y’all probably get a better sense from, ummm, Hymas, about what’s going on with that
—————————————————————— From Laura ?
From her uh fiancé, or husband, whatever his status happens to be right now (laugh)
And uh also from Ric, uh they’re more closer to Burzynski than I am, because I have never met Burzynski, I have never e-mailed Burzynski, uhmmm never talked to Burzynski, never met him, blah blah blah
Uh, my sense is that since 1996 when the FDA talked about antineoplastons, that specific FDA Commissioner that was in charge at the time, he set out 7 major points about how there was going to be less people required and there was going to be less paperwork, there was going to be less stringent things about Partial Response 
And so, to me, the FDA is the final source to go to when people want to complain about how long their trials have lasted uh because the FDA is bottom line, you know, in charge of that
—————————————————————— When you, when you think about a major, sorry, go ahead
And my other point is that, uhmmm, when these trials finish, as I’ve pointed out on my blog, M.D. Anderson finished a trial in 2006 and didn’t publish the results electronically until January of this year 
So, just think
Burzynski’s 1st trial we know that finished in 2009
So we would still have more years to go before he caught up to M.D. Anderson as far as publishing
So for him to actually be trying to publish stuff now and The Lancet not publishing because they have other stuff to do, put in there, that’s understandable
So, we know that he’s trying to publish, uh but they’re going to keep it close to the vest obviously, from, from how they do their things, and where they’re trying to publish
And plus, like I’ve said before
—————————————————————— Yeah, right, uh
We’ve still got the accelerated approval thing that’s out there, you know, like the FDA’s given Temodar and, and Avastin, and another drug, whereas they’re not doing the same thing for antineoplastons, eve even though for all intents and purposes from what we know, antineoplastons have had better success rates than Temodar and Avastin when they were approved 
—————————————————————— Antineoplastons has a better rate ?
Well from the information that’s been published in certain um publications
And in, and in not only Burzynski’s but elsewhere in, in newspapers or articles, or such like that
—————————————————————— Right, one of the things that that there there are 2 points to be made here
Uhm, the 1st one is that major pharmaceutical companies that are getting this accelerated approval have a track record of producing results which Burzynski does not have
Secondly, when it comes to ummm the rates of antineoplastons, how can we possibly say without a single published trial he, that he has an improved rate over Temodar or anything like that, and that’s exactly what would show to us whether or not his rate is better, the the types of publications that he’s done, that look really good on paper, ummm, to the to the, the common persons eye are these case series where he goes through and picks out people who have happened to have survived
—————————————————————— But what that doesn’t tell us is whether or not the antineoplaston had anything to do with it
What you need to do is go and separate the background noise, the random weird rare but very real survive, unexpected survivals that occur, and separate those, uhhh, from any effect of antineoplaston, he’s never done that
Well what I found interesting is when the FDA approved these other 1 or 2 drugs, some of them specifically said that, uhhh, some of these drugs had, you know, better survivability or they showed no better rate than any previous treatment but we’re approving it anyway 
Basically that’s what the publication said and I published this on my blog in an article specifically about, you know, those 2 or 3 drugs that the FDA approved for brainstem or brain related cancers 
And so, you know, I’m not going to buy that argument about that, about that specific thing
—————————————————————— But if you think about that, I mean that if it does have a a an improvement rate above uh other treatments
—————————————————————— That still has an improvement rate, you know, that, that would give another option to people, ummm, even if in the aggregate their rates aren’t better
It might work on some individuals tumors rather than on, you know, you you it it is it taken as a, as a lump but extend life by uh quality of life for 3 months or something um in some cases but, you know, it it still has an effect, a real effect, and deserves to be out there
Well one of these newspaper articles specifically said, you know, Avastin would maybe keep you alive for maybe 4 more months
So, you know, take that 
—————————————————————— That’s a long time when someone is dying
Well, we can wonder if some of Burzynski’s results are the same, otherwise why would the FDA say, you know, give the ODD , why would the FDA give the phase 3 approval 
Plus I don’t buy some of these doctors coming out and saying stuff, they have the opportunity just like the other doctors in Egypt , in Russia , in Germany, in, in Poland , in China [32 – 33], in Taiwan  that have done antineoplaston studies, I’m like, these people can do antineoplaston studies so what’s the excuse for all these other doctors who say that they supposedly can’t do them
You know, the information’s out there and
—————————————————————— Well, one of
and like these other doctors can do it
—————————————————————— One of the problems that that doctors have in in this country when it comes to doing ummm antineoplastons studies to verify any any effect that uh Burzynski has uhhh I i think back to the one where people say well that the FDA sabotaged his trials, and
Well, we kind of know that that’s a fact 
—————————————————————— Clarification: NIH, NCI, and the Investigators
—————————————————————— Well, if if you think about it though, um, the, the proposed action as I understand it of the antineoplaston is that it’s a deacetylase inhibitor, which slightly unspools DNA, that allows uh, which would allow uh proteins to get into a pair of damaged DNA
And we have drugs that do that which carry a much lower sodium load
Uh, um, it, that would have a therapeutic effect on and that the risks outweigh the possible benefits of using this one particular drug
Um, I’ve seen any number of people looking at um, if you look at the Luna ah Pettiguine uh uh story on The Other Burzynski Patient Group um you see that the doctor is absolutely horrified by the insane sodium load that that Burzynski’s patients are carrying
Um in in some ways that that sodium load is uh leading people to constantly drinking up to I’ve seen 12 liters of water a day
—————————————————————— That’s not necessary for other deacetylase inhibitors
Um the, why would you prefer that to to another drug if it did essentially the same thing, that didnt have this massive side effect ?
Well what we know from 1996 from Burzynski’s own information that he’s published, is that not only does he have the original parent antineoplastons, but he’s developed 2nd and 3rd generations, but he can’t just stop in the middle of his clinical trial and use the 2nd and 3rd generations which may be better 
He can't uh use these other types of um antineoplastons that other researchers, researchers like Egypt , or Japan  have found um that may be better because he can’t just switch in the middle of the clinical trial
Now if he, if the FDA approves his product, well then, maybe he can roll out the 2nd and 3rd generation and these other types of antineoplastons that may be less harsh, but that’s all he’s got to work on and that takes us back to the FDA, having control over the entire process, as far as the paperwork, how many people are in the trials, etcetera
—————————————————————— Well that sss I believe that that’s proposed by the researchers, the design trial, you know they they sign off on it but that is is, is up to uh Burzynski uh my uh David James @StortSkeptic on the
—————————————————————— ah he has asked everything that Burzynski does looks sort of like the behaviors of pseudo-science
—————————————————————— So what we’re saying uhhh he does uh uhhh Burzynski like for instance like I said he has vertically integrated, ah, he controls all parts from identification to the creation of the drug uh to the diagnosing uh well he doesn’t do the diagnosing but he does um um prescribe and distribute, he does all that vertically, which is actually something that snake oil salesmen do
—————————————————————— Another thing that that’s a red flag in Skeptic circles is that his one compound seems to be a sort of panacea for all sorts of different types of, of of cancers, um where we know that cancer has a a varied uh, uh, ideology and and the uh panaceas are are are to be and a variety of different types of causes um, in fact in any one tumor you would, you could say that these, these tumors are are completely uh heterogenous
The idea that there’s gonna be one knockout, it seems rather unrealistic
Um, additionally he charges immense amounts of money for this drug, um, even though the components cost pennies
Um, on top of that, um, there’s something that he asks for a a huge payment up front
—————————————————————— That’s something that’s been warned against for generations of uh by anti-quack um uh crusaders if if they’re asking for everything up front, then be afraid
Ummm, another thing is that uh the kind of cult that’s sprung up around Burzynski, uh, one that is immune to uh criticism, reason, and pits people who are doing standard cancer research, as enemies, um, creating a black and white version of the world where there are good people and there are bad people
—————————————————————— There are people who are fighting the disease, and then there are people who are really helping the disease
I mean, if you look at the, the new web-site by the Burzynski patients fighting back group, they say support the cure not the cancer
That’s a manikin world-view of black and white
—————————————————————— Um, these are all huge red flags, that you’re dealing with a quack
Um, why hasn’t Burzynski done anything to change that ?
Well I find it interesting that you talk about the cost, because I’ve done a lot of research about the cost, and I was just looking at the cost again this morning, and put it into that particular blog article I was talking about, that I did for this particular program 
The thing that’s funny is that people can say, ohhh Burzynski charges a lot, but the fact is, so does chemo, radiation, and some of these newspaper articles that have been published, and specifically in the movie, Burzynski 2, one of the people mentioned how much someone was paying for standard treatment
And I noticed our
favorite oncologist didn’t comment about that in his movie review 
—————————————————————— Well, there, this is important
This is really important though
Wha, when she’s talking about, that’s Luna Pettiguine’s mother, is is talking about the costs there
Uhmmm, you, when someone is not insured in in this country,
Ahm, the, the the base cost that that’s calculated is, is the hospital only expects to get a fraction, a tiny fraction of that back from the insurance companies, and that’s why the costs are so inflated
Um, usually, when a patient is self-pay there is a self-pay price which is a more reasonable price
—————————————————————— Additionally, all of those therapies, have demonstrated efficacy, and if Burzynski were to demonstrate his efficacy, $30,000 dollars to start on a life-saving treatment for a child would be a steal, and he would earn every nickel of it
Um, so, those arguments hold very little weight with us
Well what I find interesting, you know, I’m not sure how people think he’s supposed to pay for the clinical trials, you know, if he’s supposed to go into debt, millions of dollars
—————————————————————— He has a a an enormous house that’s valued in the tens of millions of dollars, he could do that if if the other, the other thing he could do, and this, we would love to see him do this, wousa, would be apply to Federal grant
That, that would be amazing, if he could get a grant to study this stuff
But, you know, um, I I don’t think he’d be able to get one, I don’t think he’s shown uh that he can carry off a uh a research program responsibly
I find that funny considering the FDA approved phase 3, has given him ODD for brainstem glioma and also also all gliomas 
You know, that’s kind of ridiculous 
And the people
gettin’ off about his house, well who cares ?
They don’t know where his money came for that particular source
—————————————————————— (Clarification: “They don’t know the particular source where his money came from for that house”)
—————————————————————— Oh he, have you noticed the the, the thing on his web-site where if you make a donation to the clinic it goes directly to him ?
Well, you know, when you have good tax lawyers your tax lawyers will tell you how to structure things, and everybody in America has the right to structure their taxes in a manner that effectively serves them according to our Supreme Court
So, if you have a tax lawyer who tells you, hey this is the best way to do it, to save money, well, you may do that uh based upon your lawyer’s advice
So, maybe Burzynski has taken his tax lawyers advice, just like I’m sure he’s taken Richard Jaffe’s ad advice (laugh), which has proved well, for him
You know, you know
That’s another thing
—————————————————————— Ummm, o-kay
Uh, I want to turn this over to the people who are watching
Um, I want to give them a a chance to address you as well
Uhmmm, hi everyone
Uhmmm, so, um, let’s, let’s wait for for that to roll in, and I do wait to go back to the, the the, the and let’s be very specific about this, the the things that you see on The Other Burzynski Patent Group, a patient reporting that um uh getting worse is getting better
How do you explain that ?
Well I guess we could ask, you know, Ben and Laura Hymas 
What was their experience, you know ?
Did they have, did she have to drink uh a lot of water because she was thirsty ?
You know, did she have to drink a lot of water due to the high sodium ?
—————————————————————— Well that’s just a known side-effect, your going to know that going in, but we actually have people say
So I would ask her about her personal experience instead of saying, you know, instead of quoting some of these other people
—————————————————————— Are there, why why why not, these people, see this is the thing though
The reason that site was started was because the people that don’t make it don’t have a voice
And when you, when you whittle away, when you only look at the at the, the positive outcomes, which is exactly in Burzynski’s favor to only look at the positive outcomes, and to have no sense of how other people’s diseases progressed, right, you’re gonna get a skewed and inaccurate version of the efficacy of this particular drug
Now lets lets lets go back and not talk about Laura, lets talk about these patients who report symptoms of getting worse, as if they were signs of getting better
Some people say that oh it’s a healing crisis or it’s progression of the disease
Or other people say it’s breaking up in the middle, hurrah
—————————————————————— No, it’s actually a tumor that’s growing
That record there, that’s being left by patients, whose stories are every bit as important as the as the stories of the patients who have lived, are painting a completely different picture
How do you explain that ?
Well we all know the FDA is in charge of this, and so hopefully they know what’s going on
—————————————————————— Are they feeding these people their stories ?
Are they feeding these people their stories
No, I’m sure the FDA can look at the records because Burzynski sent them 2.5 million pages according to our friend Fabio 
And uh, you know just something the doctors who came in and did the little ol’ one day, 6 patient records, where they reviewed all the records and slides, and MRI’s, etcetera, you know they can do the same thing, the FDA can do the same thing with all these patients 
And see the same MRI’s and scans, etcetera
I mean, we, we know that with all these 374 children I mentioned dying in other science-based medicine clinical trials 
I mean, they, FDA probably went through all their records
And, so, all these people didn’t look good either but, you know, the FDA still gave approval to Avastin and Te Temodar even though a lot of people died in their clinical trials 
—————————————————————— Okay I’m going to go back, I want to point something else out to you
Um, I have to, I don’t remember the exact patient so I have to go back to my web-site to take a look at it
—————————————————————— Because we are, because we’re on a Google+ stream that that’s a lot of data it takes awhile to bring up my, my site
I mean, we could agree that since Burzynski’s publication says that it’s going to take a month to get up to required dosage, and so we know, the tumor can still grow, like he said, up to 50%, he specifically acknowledges that in his publication, so, we know that can happen 
—————————————————————— Well, that seems to give him an instant out, no matter what happens
That turns his claims into something that’s unfalsifiable
If I could give you an example of what unfalsifiable is
Um, and I’ll I’ll draw an uh, uh, case, uh hypothetical case of um uh proposed by Carl Sagan as the invisible dragon in your garage
—————————————————————— If you say you have have a dragon in your garage, um, you know, you should be able to go over and verify that there’s a dragon in the garage
So let’s say we go over to Carl Sagan’s garage and, you know
Well, I don’t see anything
Well it’s an invisible dragon
Well okay, well then, let’s uh spray paint it
Well, it’s incorporeal
Well, uh, let’s measure for the heat of the breath
Well it’s heatless flame that it breathes
And, you know, okay, well then we’ll put flour down on the ground to see that it’s it it’s standing there
And, oh no it’s ah it’s floating
Well, you know, at some point, when you can’t falsify something
When you cannot, even in principle, prove something false, it’s indistinguishable from something that’s not there
And that kind of out, that oh well the tumor can keep on growing
Th (laugh) that that that’s an invisible dragon, as far as I can tell
Well we know from his own publications, he says he can’t just go in and start giving the maximum dose, or recommended dose right off the bat because a particular condition will occur, and he specifically mentions, in the publications what that condition is, I don’t remember it right off the top of my head 
But then again, his 2nd generation, his 3rd generation, his other form of antineoplastons that may work in the future, if approved, well those could possibly (not) have the same uh adverse effects that the current parent generation have 
But we don’t know, and like I said the FDA I’m sure knows because they have all the records, we don’t have them, and so unlike our favorite oncologist I’m not going to speculate, about what the FDA knows and I do not know
—————————————————————— A every time that I and and and and , and David points this out, that um, you you know your not going to speculate about the the FDA but then at every turn your invoking the FDA as being obstructionist
—————————————————————— I, I just find that to be contradictory and and self-defeating
Um, let me see
Well we know they stopped this particular trial, supposedly because a patient died
So what’s the hold-up ?
I mean, hopefully they’ve done an autopsy
What was found
—————————————————————— Well, that’s not necessarily true
—————————————————————— I mean uh when it when it comes to the case um I’ve i’ve talked to oncologists about this
And when it comes to uh for instance in in this case it sounds like it was a pediatric patient who was dying, ummm, who had died, ummm, the,
the 1st inclination is to ascribe the death to, um, to the tumor, which actually, would be to Burzynski’s benefit if there were other cases, I’m not saying there were, but if there were other cases where this type of complication arose, and it was ascribed to the tumor they might well not do it, uh, do an autopsy
—————————————————————— Um, it’s ah as you could imagine it could be very difficult for the families to do that especially when they have ooh ah, a possibility of what, you know, led to the ultimate demise, that didn’t involve them ultimately somehow being responsible for it, right?
So, it it it doesn’t seem to me that necessarily an autopsy would be um a a done deal
Um, let me see
And we don’t have a final report from the FDA on what the findings were
—————————————————————— No we don’t and it would be irresponsible to completely speculate on on, on, the outcome of that uh, uh, uh, individual patient, I am still scrolling through looking for this story that I wanted to talk about
—————————————————————— Uh, and, I guess I’ll
It should be in Amelia’s I I, I packed Amelia’s story with all the stories, um, that I could find um in what we’d written up already
Hold on a sec
She is a cute kid though
Now, our favorite oncologist (laugh), as you keep putting it, um, uh, with with the Amelia story, um, uh, was able to correctly determine that the Saunders family, had a, did not understand the significance of this cyst that had opened up in, uh, that had opened up in the center of the tumor, in fact they were ecstatic
They were delighted
Um, the family, of Haley, um, S, also
—————————————————————— Uh, the the family of Haley S., also, had the same reading given to them
Um, the same diagnosis uh same prognosis was to, was given to Justin B in 2006
A similar cyst in Lesley S’s story uh ah, was in 2006
Um, and that kept her on uh treatment for a a another month so that could be another $7,000 some odd dollars
We same thing in the, in the case of, uh, Samantha T in 2005
We see it again as far back as 1994, in Cody G’s story
And then lastly and and the worst uh thing that we’ve seen, the patients report that Burzynski himself told Chase uh Sammut
—————————————————————— The exact same thing
Um, and that was a
Have you read Chase’s story
I don’t remember specifically
—————————————————————— It would stick with you, because that case is grotesque
The parents, uh, there was even a uh, uh, a fight over whether or not the parents should be allowed to continue treating this kid
He was basically lying, uh, in a uh uh brain dead uh for all intents and purposes, uh, in a in a coma uh without possibility of reversal, in his parents living room for months
Um, eh, all the while, he’s still on the, uh, we’ll I don’t actually, I can’t say that, I don’t exactly know if he was on the treatment the whole time
Um, but, we do have this pattern, that is there, of people believing, that this particular pattern is, uh, progress, a a is not progression of disease but is is inducement to to stay on, um, eh, and this has been going on for decades
Eh, eh just based on what we’ve been able to find that patients have been reporting this for decades
—————————————————————— At some point, you would think that a doctor would realize that perhaps what these patients are walking away with is inaccurate
Why hasn’t that changed ?
Well he’s using the same 1st generation drug
—————————————————————— E wel that that that that’s not it
This is this is like the 2nd day of oncology class, that that’s what the tumor looks like
People are reporting that the tumor is no longer growing, um, or that the growing has slowed after they’ve started
There, there is an explanation for that, and why you can’t take that as necessarily being evidence of efficacy
—————————————————————— Ah, the tumor grows exponentially while the resources are available to it, but then it reaches a point where it’s a self-limited growth, so it, the time between uh doublings in size decreases logarithmically
Um, so this is, this is like basic tumor physiology that we’re talking about, and his patients don’t leave his office, knowing these facts, for decades
This doesn’t have anything to do with the, do with the drug
Well I’m sure a lot of people leave the doctors office not knowing things (laugh), for decades
—————————————————————— But, but when it’s, this treatment is working or this is not evidence that the treatment is working
That’s pretty basic
I mean we’re not, we’re not talking about deacetylase inhibitors or anything like that were you’d really need to know something about
This is, whether or not, you’re getting the outcome that you want
—————————————————————— This is the whole reason for going
And it has nothing to do with the with the with the drugs
Well we know the contin, the tumors can uh continue to grow for awhile, at least, and certain effects that they probably would
—————————————————————— Which is, which is like which we just pointed out was a was an invisible dragon
Well I’m sure, I mean, it’s going to continue to grow, in any other clinical trial too, for a certain awhile
I mean like
—————————————————————— you’re you’re you’re assuming
You’re you’re you’re assuming that
You’re assuming that
Um, I’m not assuming that
Well we know that all these other kids died in these science-based medicine trials, and, you know, we can assume that that was the case there too 
—————————————————————— Ultimately it would, but whether or not it it it had a genuine therapeutic effect is a different matter all together
Um, this, what would, what would convince you that you’re wrong
The FDA not giving him phase 3 approval , the FDA not giving him ODD designation 
—————————————————————— So you’re saying because the Orphan Drug Designation and the face that there’s a phase 3, therefor it works ?
And showing that, and showing the FDA that there’s evidence of effectiveness 
—————————————————————— So what you’re saying is there’s nothing that would convince you now, that it doesn’t work
Not until the FDA says it doesn’t work
Um, it’s it’s it’s not the FDA’s, but you understand it’s not the FDA’s job to tell someone that their drug doesn’t work
Well they seem to be doing a good job of it
—————————————————————— it’s it’s it’s up to Burzynski
It’s up to Burzynski to show that his drug does work
And it’s always been his burden of proof
He’s the one that’s been claiming this miracle cancer cure, forever
Well I’m sure, I’m sure they wouldn’t have done things if they didn’t see some evidence that it was working
—————————————————————— Um, I don’t know if you’ve read Jaffe’s book
No I haven’t read it 
—————————————————————— There seems to have been a lot going on there you really should look at it because it’s it’s it’s kind of revealing
Um, that that that it seems that there was a lot of political pressure applied to the FDA which may have been, uh, uh, have influenced the way in which these these trials were approved