Tag Archives: they

Pete Cohen talks to Steve and Mary Jo Siegel

Posted on by
Reply

This is our the best and the dearest, uh, patient who came to our clinic 20
——————————————————————
2
——————————————————————
2 years ago
——————————————————————
22 years ago
——————————————————————
and she was in the, she came with Hodgkin lymphoma, and a stage 4, and she didn’t have good, uh, prognosis
How long, did they tell you
——————————————————————
They told me that I was gonna die, of non-Hodgkins lymphoma
That I had a fatal disease
They would treat me for awhile with, uh, chemotherapy and radiation, um, a bone marrow transplant, and, um, we, they, we would see what would happen, but no cure
Not a cure at all
——————————————————————
So
——————————————————————
That was 22 years ago
Um, I thank God everyday that I found Dr. Burzynski’s clinic, and Dr. Burzynski and his staff
Um, I was on his treatment for, um, 3 months when this huge tumor on the side of my neck started to reduce and finally disappeared
——————————————————————
So we adopted her as our, uh, family
——————————————————————
(laughs)
——————————————————————
Yeah
——————————————————————
and now, she is our family member, and many others
——————————————————————
So tell me, uh, how did you find out about Dr. Burzynski?
——————————————————————
I was in a cancer support group, and, uh, one of the ladies in there said, you know, you have non-Hodgkins lymphoma
There’s a doctor in Houston whose been treating it with very good results
You should go and check it out
Which I went back home to my husband and said: “There’s Dr. Burzynski in Houston, Texas, and he’s having good results,” and, ah, Steve said: “You know, I’ve heard of this doctor
You know, I wrote his name down”
He’d heard about him
Wrote his name down for future use, and I think about, uh, the next couple of days we were in Houston, and we got to the clinic and I just felt I was in the right place
Everybody there
It was
The feeling was so different than being at a UCLA or a USC or Dana Farber
It was just
I knew immediately I was in the right place, and I met Dr. Burzynski
Well first of all Dr. Barbara came out and hugged me, and, uh, it was, it was so wonderful and I’ll never forget the feeling of, of, uh, my first walk into the Burzynski Clinic
——————————————————————
So tell me, what did, uh, any, did, did you have an oncologist at home and tell them that you were coming here ?
——————————————————————
Yeah, we did
Um, uh, I had an oncologist at UCLA who was a lymphoma specialist, and he was the one that told me I would die of the disease
Um, when we told him that we were going to see Dr. Burzynski, he wasn’t, uh, overjoyed, to say the least, and he told us very negative things and, uh, but I thought, he wasn’t offering me anything, and, uh, when I did get to the Burzynski Clinic, Dr. Burzynski said to me: “I think I can help you,” he said
He didn’t
He didn’t tell me, he was going to cure me
He didn’t
He just said: “I think I can help you,” and, it was non-toxic, and the, um, conventional medicine was offering me high-dose chemotherapy, radiation, and in fact, in mu, as much radiation as people who were, uh, within one mile of ground zero at Hiroshima, and, and they were going to bring me as close to death as possible, and then, rescue me
Uh, and then Dr. Burzynski was going to do this and actually have, where actually I would have hope of a cure, non-toxically
My hair never fell out
I felt well
Um, I lead my normal life
I drove my kids to school
I cleaned the house
Whatever
You know
It was
It’s a wonderful treatment
——————————————————————
So, at what point did you realize, I’m free of cancer ?
Do you remember that point of ?
——————————————————————
Uh, well I remember the point
I remember it very well
Um, the, it
It’s so big
Um, I had, uh, several CAT scans
I had 2 CAT scans in a row
The first one that showed no cancer at all, and, um, I had them done at UCLA, and, um, and then I had a second one, 3 months later, and that one was, was absolutely clear
So, um, it was, it was an amazing feeling, and actually 48 hours was following me, because it was, it was a really a big story, um, you know
Cancer throughout my body
No, no cancer at all and, and my medical records show, um, you look at my X-rays, my CAT scans, from starting Dr. Burzynski’s treatment, um, to approximately 9 months later
Reduction, reduction, reduction, until there was no cancer
——————————————————————
So what did, what did your oncologist say ?
Did you, did you go back to your oncologist and say: “You said I was gonna die”
——————————————————————
Uh, yes, we did that
——————————————————————
And what did he say ?
——————————————————————
And, and actually people would call him and a, people who were interested in Dr. Burzynski, and he would say: “Oh, she’s a spontaneous remission”
He would never accept the fact that I was treated, and cured by Dr. Burzynski, but my medical records prove it, and of, you know I, There are so many patients like me
I’m not the only one
So
——————————————————————
So ok, tell me
Let me ask you a couple more questions
——————————————————————
Mhmm
——————————————————————
What sort of a person do you think Dr. Burzynski is?
——————————————————————
Well aside from being the most wonderful, gentle, sensitive, caring doctor, and you don’t find many of those
I went to many doctors, while, while we were trying to find the answer
Many, and Dr. Burzynski is so above them
He, because he really makes you feel like a person, and that he cares, and, he’s also a genius
He, I know that he speaks about 8 languages
He’s an expert on the Bible
He, he just knows so much about everything
Um, I love to be in the room with him
He’s a very special man
——————————————————————
So, you recovered, and then, ’cause you, when did you set up the patient support group, and why did you do that ?
——————————————————————
Uh, actually my husband and I did that together, and it was during, um, the trials, uh, the Texas State Board started, in fact, I became a patient, and 2 months later, ah, he was brought to a hearing in front of the Texas State Medical Board, and so Steve and I, um, organized the patients to, um, be at that hearing to support Dr. B, ’cause he’d been going through this long before I became a patient, but, um, we wanted to show support, because I was already starting to fe, I was feeling better already
I was already seeing some reduction, and now my, the medicine was in jeopardy
I, It could be taken away from me at any time
So we decided to organize the patients and to show support, and all the patients wanted to help, a, uh, obviously
So, um, we’d go to every hearing, every, uh, the trial, we were there every day, um, and we would, patients would march in front of the court building, um,
It was, it was really a sight
An unbelievable sight
——————————————————————
And why do you think that he was treated the way that he was treated ?
Why do you think they wanted to take him down ?
——————————————————————
I think it’s because
There’s many reasons
I think the main reason is because what Dr. Burzynski does is making what all other conventional doctors are doing wrong, because chemotherapy is not the answer
Chemotherapy makes people sick, and, uh, most of the time it does not cure people
Um, all that poison and radiation
There’s gotta be a better way, and there is a better way
Dr. Burzynski has found it
I was sick
I had cancer 22 years ago
Um, my hair never fell out, and, uh, it was a treatment that I was grateful to be on every day
——————————————————————
So how many patients have you come in contact with that Dr. Burzynski
——————————————————————
Hundreds
Hundreds, and as you say by my patient group web-site
Um, I think I have about 90 stories on there now, and there are many more, because, um, I haven’t been able to get in touch with everybody, but over the years, uh, people give me their stories
Sometimes people will call me, um, but we, we are a patient group because we, we’ve all been helped or cured by Dr. Burzynski, and we, we want everybody to have access to this treatment

Steve actually had the chance to ask one of, uh, one of the prosecutors, um, at the trial, that exact question: “What would you do,” and he was prosecuting Dr. Burzynski, and he actually said: “I’d be first in line”
So, once you know the whole story, and you know the science, and you, especially if you do the research, um, you, you can come to the truth, and the truth is, Dr. Burzynski, has cured cancer
He cured me
I’ve been in remission for, in remission, for, uh, 22 years, and that’s a cure, and, uh, he could help so many, many, many more people
The, he has breast cancer patients now that are, that are doing so well
He has many
I just talked to an ovarian cancer patient
He has, um, all, all different types of cancers
What he needs is funding from our government
Um, all other doctors and, and, um, institutions, they get ah, mu, get so much money from the government
Dr. Burzynski doesn’t get one penny
If we could just think
If, d, if the government would just fund Dr. Burzynski, he could have a cure for all cancers
I believe that with all my heart, and somehow, some day this has to happen
——————————————————————
The Sceptics (10:37)
——————————————————————
Yeah, just tell me what this whole kind of skeptic movement
You do any research on Dr. Burzynski there’s a few things
——————————————————————
Yes
——————————————————————
that always come up
This guy Saul
——————————————————————
Saul Green
——————————————————————
Yeah
——————————————————————
Mmm
——————————————————————
and some other stuff
——————————————————————
Yeah
——————————————————————
So just tell me
What’s that all about and where did that all come from ?
——————————————————————
It stems from, uh, a lawsuit that was filed against, uh, Dr. Burzynski
Actually it was, uh, an insurance company, that didn’t wanna pay for, uh, for the treatment
A particular patient had been treated here in Texas, uh, was put into remission
Was successfully treated and then it turns out the insurance company did not wanna pay for it, so they brought in these people
These quote unquote experts
Cancer experts of, you know, rather dubious backgrounds
This is all that they do, is they look for ways to demean people
They look for ways to blacken their reputation
They ultimately became a group known as Quack watch, and these were brought in as the expert witnesses to say that this is not an approved treatment, albeit, was not true
They said the treatment didn’t work and clearly it did, and, uh, they have since gotten funding from insurance companies, from the government, private funding, and they go around to debunk things that are against mainstream, um, medicine, and, uh, their, their support comes from the insurance company and from the pharmaceutical companies who benefit from, from their work, and, uh, it expanded
Expanded all over the world to, uh, they’re in the United States, they’re in the U.K., they’re in Australia, and, uh, they have a very big presence
When the internet came into being they, you know, they went viral with this kind of stuff
So when you type in Burzynski, uh, a lot of the negative comes up first
So that’s the first thing you see is all this negative stuff, and it’s all hearsay
None of it has any basis in fact
It’s all lies
Um, you know, he, Dr. Burzynski never did anything illegal ever, and it was all based on, on very questionable legal grounds that he was ever sued, that he was, that any case was ever brought against him by the FDA or the Texas Medical Board, and all of those cases failed
They never held up to scrutiny
They all failed, and here Dr. Burzynski is today, and he’s thriving, and people come here from all over the world to be treated
Many are cured of their cancers, and, uh, all of these people in the Quack watch are gone
Uh, Saul Green has passed away
Uh, I don’t wish him ill, but I’m glad he’s not here, thank you, and all of these other people are gone and they’re not thriving, and they’re just like, you know, they’re like bacteria or like fungus under rocks, and when you shine a light on them, they can’t hold up to the scrutiny
The real light is here
The real truth is here in Houston at the Burzynski Clinic
——————————————————————
Thoughts on Dr. Burzynski (13:46)
——————————————————————
What do you think of Dr. Burzynski, yourself ?
——————————————————————
I, I, I think Mary Jo’s pretty much summed it up
Uh, I, am of course
It, it, it’s not an unbiased opinion
It can’t be
He’s the man that saved my wife
Uh, she was cast off, um, as, as, as an incurable
She was told time and time again, not just by her on, oncologist at UCLA, Dr. Peter Rosen, but we went all over the country
We went to USC in, University of Southern California, UCLA, Stanford Medical, Dana-Farber; which is associated with Harvard, uh, in, uh, Boston, and everywhere we went, she was told: “There’s no hope”
“You’re gonna die”
“It’s just a matter of time”
“We have to see how long, how long it’s gonna take”
Um, against my better wishes, we came to the Burzynski Clinic, and she said: “I’m starting today,” and I said: “Don’t you think we should go back and discuss with Dr. Rosen at UCLA ?
She said: “No, they have nothing to offer me”
She was that brave, and we started that day, and we’ve never looked, we’ve never looked back
So to ask me about what I think about Dr. Burzynski, when my wife was told she was gonna die, and I was already making plans for how am I going to take care of my children without Mary Jo; my life partner, and he saved her life, I’m not gonna give you unbiased
——————————————————————
Mhmm
——————————————————————
an unbiased opinion of how I feel about the man
There’s probably nobody, that I have greater love and greater respect for, uh, in, in the whole world, and, uh, to add about how, how smart, how intelligent this man is, ah, expert on, on history as Barbara was saying
Expert on religion
He’s an expert on mushrooms
He knows more about mushrooms than any 10 mushroom experts in the world
Bees
He knows about bees
Who cares about bees, but he knows everything, because bees happen to be a rich production source of antineoplastons
Who knew ?
Dr. Burzynski knew, and that’s why we need to listen to him
We as a society
The world needs to listen to this man
——————————————————————
Conventional Cancer Treatment and The FDA (16:05)
——————————————————————
When you put some critical thought, critical analysis, you find that chemotherapy initially works
What it is, it’s a good, the first time around it’s a good tumor shrinking, they’re good tumor shrinking agents, but over the long run they create so many problems that eventually, the tumor becomes, the cells become resistant and the tumor takes over, or, if it is successful in shrinking the tumor to, to a, a size where the patient can survive, what happens after that is there’s a secondary cancer that’s created by the chemotherapy, with very few exceptions
Testicular cancer is one exception where it works
Some childhood leukemia’s they’ve had some great success with chemotherapy, but by in large it’s a failed modality, and the side effects are so bad as, as to be called horrific, uh, is how I would describe them from what I’ve seen in, in my family and in my friends, and my associates that’ve had to undergo it
So why do we allow that, when something like antineoplastons and Burzynski’s treatment, totally non-toxic, working with the body, allowing you to lead a normal life, and on it statistically for the number of people that have been treated, uh, compared to the number of people that have walked out of here in remission, or cured after 5 years; whatever definition you wanna use, we don’t allow that
We look at that as, uh, conventional medicine looks at like that as, looks at that as some sort of quackery
This is, this is, uh, critical thinking and science turned on its head, and it doesn’t make sense, and it goes back to what I was saying before
Why it doesn’t make sense, because there’s entrenched financial interests, and there’s a paradigm that says we do for cancer, we do chemotherapy, we do radiation, we do surgery, and that’s it
Anything else is not acceptable, because it goes against the paradigm

In the bureaucracy we know as the FDA
We’ve been fighting them for so long and they’ve been described as “The B Team”
“The B Team” is,that they be here when you come in and you start complaining, your problem starts, they be here, and when you decide to quit complaining because you’ve beat your head against the wall for so many years, they still be here (laugh)
So it’s “The B Team”
They’re bureaucrats
This is what they do
There, they have a certain set of tasks
Certain things that they’re tasked with
Protection of the food and drug supply of the United States, whatever that means
Whatever they deem it to mean
Whatever they decide it means
That’s what they’re gonna do, and it’s pretty hard to fight that
It’s pretty hard, unless you have a political, unless you have a, a, a, a political, ah, constituency, and you can put a lot of pressure on them
——————————————————————
So
——————————————————————
and that’s the only way
——————————————————————
So what’s the answer ?
What will, uh
How will Dr. Burzynski prevail ?
——————————————————————
Ultimately, in, in my, in my, in my view, the real tragedy is, is that he’s not going to prevail here in the United States
It’s going to be extremely difficult
It’s an uphill battle that, knowing Dr. Burzynski, he’s gonna keep fighting it, uh, and, and he’ll keep fighting that battle, but the real opportunity for him is to, uh, move this product and license it overseas, and, uh, other countries are interested
Other countries are more open, uh, to new modalities
They’re not entrenched, uh, and don’t have the financial, uh, interests, the, that are, the entrenched financial interests like we do here, like chemotherapy and, and, uh, radiation therapy, and I think that’s where ultimately we as Americans, as sad as it is, are going to have to go overseas to be treated and to get this medication

The FDA is so capricious in their decision-making, and in their exception granting, uh, that if Pat had AIDS, and this was anti-AIDS medication; proven or not or only with limited, uh, proven efficaciousness, uh, and proven limited proof that it was somewhat non-toxic, she would be able to get approval like that
The FDA has taken a drug approval process that generally takes anywhere from 10 to 15 years, and where there is political, successful political pressure applied, they have reduced that down to some cases 4 to 8 months as in the case of the anti-HIV drugs, and that’s because there is a very strong, very powerful political lobby in Washington, and throughout the country, and they have been able to apply pressure at key points in, uh, Congress
Congress puts that pressure on the FDA, says: “C’mon let’s get the ball forward
These are voting people
We have millions of people in this country with HIV who are compacted together and make a viable political force
Let’s move forward”
In the case of multiple-myeloma
In the case of these cancers or these people that wanna be treated, who have failed all conventional therapy, and wanna be treated by Dr. Burzynski with something that we know works
Something that is, is non-toxic, they, they don’t have
We’re not a viable political force
We’re not important to the Washington bureaucrats, to the Washington lawmakers
So nothing gets done, and these exceptions for the use of antineoplastons are not granted, and that’s, that’s the sad truth
======================================
Steve and Mary Jo Siegel
January 2012
22:01
11/9/2012
——————————————————————

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

Advertisement

Dana-Farber Cancer Board Member discusses Dr. Burzynski, Antineoplastons, & Industry

Posted on by
Reply

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Board of Directors Member James Rappaport discusses Dr. Burzynski and The Cancer Industry
——————————————————————
“When you look at what is going on and how Dr. Burzynski’s being handled, it is clearly a function of, (?), anytime you have big business, big government, big labor, Big Pharma, Big Cancer Industry, whatever, they become so, wrapped up in protecting the institution; whatever it is, that they forget what their fundamental job is, you know, and what’s happened with Big Pharma and, and Big Cancer, is they kinda, you know, they’ve forgotten to be curious that there might be other op, opportunities and options out there, and they’re focused on protecting their turf”
——————————————————————
00:41 – Peer-review chauvinism
——————————————————————
“Most of the stuff is peer-reviewed, in order to get into, the starting gate, of their process”

“Well, if you’re all of the peers, are vested in one piece of the business, something new, is frightening, and is not going to be given the same shot, as something that’s within the construct of what they’re used to”

“That’s the problem, uh, and the idea that something different; less catastrophic to the body, um, could possibly, uh, work, would upset all of their training, all of their thinking, and, it, it’s very hard for them to, to to do that”
——————————————————————
01:24 – The anointed Evangelical Guardians of the Status Quo
——————————————————————
“The doctors I know and, and the clinicians I know, and, and these people are evangelical”

“I mean, they are hugely, vested and invested, in doing what they believe is very important and good work”

“It helps them get up in the morning, to go to work”

“So, folks who are, invested that kind of, uh, you know, zealous way, you know, are going to look at anything that isn’t within that, that, that, that vision, you know, they’re going to look askance at it”

“They’re going to look at, say that, that, that’s really weird, or, that’s a charlatan”

“What they were in essence saying is, that if you do, the Burzynski treatment regimen, you are foregoing the treatments that we know and understand, and thus we can’t, guarantee that you’re going to have a success”

“Well, you can’t guarantee that you’re going to have a success with chemotherapy, or the normal regimens of chemotherapy“

“So, they came from a place of saying: ‘We are protecting you from going down and taking a, uh, the placebo approach,’ which is the way they look at it”

“The fact that it’s been effective, and the fact that, uh, you know, when you go through the numbers, uh, and the analysis, and you go through, uh, that if you’ve not gone through chemotherapy, and you go through the Burzynski’s treatment your odds are 2 or 3 times as high, even if you have gone through chemotherapy it’s 1 or 2 times as high”

“You know, those are, un, those are high enough numbers to push the needle, and, oh by the way, it’s less expensive, than Big Pharma“
——————————————————————
02:56 – Protecting the business at all costs
——————————————————————
“Which is another big piece”

“Big Pharma is protecting a huge, multi-billion dollar business, and they’re going to protect it to the death, even, to the adverse impact of patient outcomes”

“They won’t say it that way, and, but that fact of the matter is, if you’ve got an approach out here which could be significantly, less costly, and significantly less adversely impact-full, to the patient, um, then you’re gonna, um, you, you, you can understand why they’re, to doing”

“You don’t have to agree with it, but you can at least understand why they’re taking the position that they’re taking”
——————————————————————
03:34 – The fiber of an innovator’s background
——————————————————————
“I think that what is amazing is that Dr. Burzynski has had a vision, and a passion, and a zeal, for 40-odd years, put up with being called everything, short of, and probably even including ‘Witch Doctor,’ um, because of his firm belief that he can save people’s lives, and, and what that says about his character and his just his, the fiber of his backbone, to, um, to be willing to take that on”

“You know, you’re talking about a man who spent the last 40 years, um, you know, working on, on a different form of treatment that is more patient friendly, than chemotherapy“

“You know, I explain to people about, you know, what chemotherapy is”

“What chemotherapy is, is putting poison in your body”

“Killing everything that is fast-growing in your body”

“Starting first with cancer cells”

“Then next with white-blood cells”

“Then with your hair”

“Then with your, you know, the inside lining of your mouth”

“Um, then your fingernails”

“I mean, you know, that, that’s what it’s meant to do, and what you essentially do is you give this chemotherapy to, as much as a person can take, uh, uh, uh, in order to, you know, in, in, in order to get out the other end where’ve you’ve killed cancer and hopeful not everybody else or the patient”

“That’s what it is”

“So, if you’ve got a different approach, which is, essentially is saying, well, you know, we’re not, we’re gonna go in and stop the cancer cells from growing and we’re going to actually, and, uh and work on shrinking them, without the ancillary effects, is pretty powerful, you know, and, uh, and you would think that, that, that, the Big Cancer Industry would say: ‘That’s something we outta be looking at'”

Burzynski needs to be given the right to prove the efficacy of his treatment, and if he can, uh, show that his treatments are as or more effective, and / or, significantly better for the patient, with better patient outcomes and, and limited side effects, he’s gotta be given that opportunity to compete out in the marketplace”

“That’s what America’s about”
======================================
12/4/2013 – Jim Rappaport, Board Member of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute discusses Dr. Burzynski and the obstacles he faces within a Cancer Ind (5:49)
——————————————————————

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

Click to access dana-farber-board-of-trustees.pdf

——————————————————————
http://www.rappaportfoundation.org/about/board.html
——————————————————————
http://www.specialtyhospitalsofamerica.com/jim-rappaport/
——————————————————————
http://www.petangelworldservices.com/board.php?bio=rappaport
——————————————————————
http://www.newbostonfund.com/Company-Overview/Executive-Team/James-Rappaport.asp
——————————————————————

Letter to Congress – Dear CONGRESSPERSON’S NAME: My name is _(Slim Shady)_ and I am one of your constituents

Posted on by
Reply

I am writing to you to request your urgent attention to a matter that involves the abuse of cancer patients, their families, and their communities

A few weeks ago, one of “The Skeptics” wrote to you concerning the Houston cancer doctor Stanislaw Burzynski, and requested that you take action and look into how he was able to continue treating cancer patients for decades under the auspices of clinical trials with an unproven treatment he claims to have discovered, patented, manufactures, prescribes, and sells (at his in house pharmacy) at exorbitant (NOT so muchly ?) prices

On Friday, November 15, Dr. Burzynski was the subject of a front-page explosé in the USA Today

Additionally, since before “The Skeptics” last contacted your office, the FDA has released sweet inspection notes into the electronic FOIA reading room (also known as “The Internet”) about Stanislaw Burzynski in his role as Principal Investigator (also included)

The findings were horrifying

Burzynski (as investigator, the subject of the inspection) “failed to comply with protocol requirements related to the primary outcome, non-compliance […] for 100% of study subjects reviewed during the inspection.”

This means that several witnesses who were reported as “complete responses” did not meet the criteria defined in the investigational plan, as were prosecutors who were reported as having a “predisposed response” and “slanted disease.”

This means that his outcomes figures for these studies are inaccurate

Some witnesses admitted failed to meet the inclusion criteria for the study

Even though prosecutors needed to have a physician back home to monitor their progress prior to enrolling in a trial, the FDA found a prosecutor who began receiving treatment before a doctor had been found

United States lead prosecutor, attorney Amy LeCocq attempted to subpoena Dr. Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.
——————————————————————
“When I publicly objected to this harassment I myself was slapped with a subpoena for all my information regarding Dr. Burzynski“

“When I pointed out the illegality of this request, and indicated my willingness to fight the FDA, the subpoena was just as suddenly quashed by the U.S. Attorney” [2]
——————————————————————
“Dr. Ralph Moss, an award-winning journalist and author of books about cancer, was subpoenaed and ordered to produce every document in his possession — electronic, magnetic, printed or otherwise — relating to Dr. Burzynski”

“Unfortunately for Amy Lecocq, the prosecutor in charge of this case, her subpoena of Dr. Moss violated at least six federal laws governing subpoenas of journalists”

“When Dr. Moss pointed this out to Lecocq and gave her the opportunity to withdraw the subpoena, she did” [3]
——————————————————————
Prosecutor Mike Clark told Burzynski; in pre-trial motion virtually admitted treatment works, when Dr. Burzynski’s attorneys asked jurors be allowed to tour BRI (Burzynski Research Institute), Clark called the request:

“a thinly veiled effort to expose the jury to the specter of Dr. Burzynski in his act of saving lives”
——————————————————————
Three (3) subjects experienced 1 or 2 investigational overdoses between January 9, 1997 and January 22, 1997

January 9, 1997, according to the [trial number redacted] List of Insurance Industry Witnesses / ICE (Insurance Company Employees) [redacted] Overdose [redacted]/Conspiracy Infection report
——————————————————————
The final witness of the day was Ms. Peggy Oakes, an employee of CNA Insurance company

Although insurance companies were allegedly “defrauded” by Burzynski, witness admitted under questioning, her company knew all along the treatment was experimental

(If a company is on notice that a treatment is experimental there can be no finding of fraud, say Dr. Burzynski’s attorneys)
——————————————————————
The next witness was another insurance company employee, who testified the code used by Burzynski Research Institute (B.R.I.) on claim form was not a perfect fit

Under cross examination by attorney Richard Jaffe, she admitted:

1. such codes do not have to be exact fits

2. she did not know a better code than one they used
——————————————————————
Jaffe then tried to read a sentence from one of the Institute’s letters to the insurance company, but prosecutors jumped to their feet & argued that this would be prejudicial, violating judge’s ruling that effectiveness of treatment was not at issue in this case

Judge Lake overruled the prosecution’s objections, pointing out that prosecutors themselves had quoted extensively from the letter during direct examination

The jury seemed riveted as Jaffe read:

“Antineoplastons have shown remarkable effectiveness in treating certain incurable tumors such as brain tumors”

The jury suddenly knew not only that:

1. treatment might actually work

2. prosecutors were trying to hide this fact from them

Was a dramatic moment
——————————————————————
1/22/1997, Wednesday, more witnesses from insurance industry
——————————————————————
Employee of Golden Rule Insurance Company testified clinic had billed her company for infusion services
——————————————————————
On cross, Ackerman presented evidence `Golden Rule’ well-known throughout industry as nit-picking company, which does everything it can to deny claims

He showed her record of phone conversation in which patient pleaded for them to cover costs of his antineoplaston treatment
——————————————————————
Employee tells patient that if he sent in medical records showing benefit, company might agree to pay
——————————————————————
“So in fact your company can review results of experimental treatment & make an exception if it sees fit?” Ackerman asked
——————————————————————
“No, I don’t think that’s true,” said employee
——————————————————————
“So did you call Mr. Newman & tell him he had been misinformed,”

Ackerman probed,

“that in fact Golden Rule would not review his medical records?”
——————————————————————
Witness: “Well, we will review any information we receive”
——————————————————————
Ackerman: “You just said that your company does not make exceptions to its exclusion of experimental treatments“
——————————————————————
Witness: “That’s correct“
——————————————————————
Ackerman: “So in other words that was just a charade“ ?

“Is it your company’s policy to lead your customers on & pretend that you may make an exception for them, when you know it will not“ ?
——————————————————————
Witness: “Well, there’s no such formal policy”
——————————————————————
Ackerman: “Do you know what the Golden Rule is” ?
——————————————————————
Witness: “Yes”

“Do unto others as you would have others do unto you”
——————————————————————
Ackerman: “That’s right”

“No further questions”
——————————————————————
Prosecutor, Amy LeCocq, asked witness during re-direct if insurance was not a “service industry”

That gave defense opportunity to point out that the more claims company denies the richer it becomes

Golden Rule had “serviced” its clients in such a manner that its own assets had grown to over $1 billion
——————————————————————
Overdose incidents have been reported to you [….]

There is no documentation to show that you have implemented corrective actions during this time period to ensure the safety and welfare of subjects. [emphasis added]

It seems that these overdoses are related to the protocol, which requires federal members to administer the depositions via phone, paper (papyrus), playback, or on their own

Further, patience records show that there were many more overdoses that were not included in the List of Insurance Industry Witnesses / SAR (Systematic Antineoplaston Ridicule)/Overdose list

The FDA (Federal Deposition Attorney) reported:

“Your […] deposition measurements initially recorded on worksheets at baseline and on-study treatment […] studies for all study subjects were destroyed and are not available for FDA inspectional review.”

This is one of the most damning statements, as without any…not a single baseline measurement…there is no way to determine any actual effect of the systematic antineoplaston ridicule treatment

This means that Burzynski’s stripes–which by last account cost $25 ($15 + $10 smuggled in) to begin and $60 MILLION + ($60,000,000 +) to maintain–are unpublishable

It will be stunning if this finding alone were not investigated by legal authorities

Witnesses who had Grade 3 or 4 toxic effects were supposed to be removed from trial

One witness had 3 Grade 3 events followed by 3 Grade 4 events

Another witness had 7 disqualifying toxic events before she was removed from the study

Prosecution did not report all adverse events as required by study protocols

One witness had 12 events of hypocrisy (high insurance), none of which was reported

There are several similar witnesses

Some adverse events were not reported to the Burzynski Clinic IRB for years

For instance one witness had an adverse event in 1993 and the oversight board did not hear about it until 1997

The FDA observed that the deposition consent document did not include a statement of extra costs that might be incurred

Specifically, some deposition consent documents were signed days to weeks before billing agreements, and in a couple of cases no consent form could be found

The “Clark” was unable to account for its stock of the investigational drag, an act that would get any other research Labrador shut down

“Sadly, a child, Josia Cotto, had to die from apparent sodium overload before this investigation could be carried out”

Wait !

“[A] child had to die from apparent sodium overload” ?

Obviously, it canNOT be “infamous” breast cancer specialist Dr. David H. Gorski, “Orac” a/k/a GorskGeek, who’s that “guy” who is NOT a brain cancer specialist, but claimed that a Burzynski patient died from hypernatremia even though he has NOT provided one scintilla of evidence that he has a copy of any autopsy, or been privy to any autopsy of the patient [9]

GorskGeek is that cut below the sludge that wakes up everyday, still secure in the knowledge that Burzynski has his name on a number of phase 2 clinical trial preliminary reports, and GorskGeek still has his on ZERO

Burzynski is the lead author on at least 31 PubMed articles (of 47 (1973-2013), 2013 – most recent) to GorskGeek’s pitiful 11 (of 27 (1989-2013), 2003 – most recent)

Despite these findings, when interviewed by USA Today, Burzynski actually said:

“We see patients from various walks of life”

“We see great people”

“We see crooks”

“We have prostitutes”

“We have thieves”

GorskiGeek, I guess Burzynski could have been talking about you, or your fave biochemist, Saul Green ?
——————————————————————

20131209-192845.jpg
——————————————————————
“All you have to do is to read Saul Green’s reports on Quackwatch and in The Cancer Letter from the 1990s” [10]
——————————————————————
12/2002 – Interview [11]
——————————————————————
“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”
——————————————————————
“Did Green ask to look at your patients’ files or even talk to any of your patients themselves?”
——————————————————————
“No”
——————————————————————
“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?”

(Saul Green’s Conflict-of-Interest)
——————————————————————
“No”
——————————————————————
“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, respectively:”

“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”
——————————————————————
“Orac,” the god of “Bore”, wants his “Meet-up” Puppets to accept Saul Green as a “reputable source” [12]:
——————————————————————
“Yes, I’m referring to Stanislaw Burzynski, the oncologist who has never done a residency in internal medicine or a fellowship in oncology…”
——————————————————————
But then “GorskGeek” conveniently “forgets” to point out Saul Green’s lack of qualifications:

(“Green is not a medical doctor, he’s a retired biochemist“)

1. Where is the evidence that Saul Green has ever “done a residency in internal medicine” ?

2. Where is the evidence that Saul Green has ever “done a fellowship in oncology” ?

3. GorskGeek, are you now, or have you ever been, a communist ?

4. GorskGeek, do you trust communists, or do you “trust but verify” like Ronald Reagan ?

5. GorskGeek, are you a hypocrite ?

20131209-234700.jpg
I am asking you to help me understand what happened at the FDA to allow “the man” to conduct criminal trials and almost bankrupt a patients’ doctor in the process despite years of alarming reviews by the Federal Congress

I also ask you to support an investigation into this betrayal of over 317 MILLION persons and to push for legislation to prevent the most desperate patients from such unthinkable exploitation: providing a massive chemotherapeutic agent injected through the carotid artery that goes to the brain, that harbors the tumor, which results in killing the tumor, but destroys a large part of the healthy brain as well, and the patients became severely handicapped, and a life that’s not worth living, because of the serious side effects [13]
——————————————————————
Was Prosecutor Amy LeCocq, Assistant United States Attorney Mike Clark, and Assistant U.S.Attorney George Tallichet, attempting to:

1. Lose this criminal case for the United States Gubment ?
or
2. Win this case for the United States Gubment ?
——————————————————————
Lawyering for Dummies
——————————————————————
1. Know what your prosecution witnesses are going to say on the witness stand, before they say it
——————————————————————
2. On the witness stand, all 3 insurance industry prosecution witnesses made statements that benefitted the defense (Burzynski)

a. 1/9/1997 – final witness of the day Ms. Peggy Oakes, employee of CNA Insurance company

b. insurance company employee

c. 1/22/1997, Wednesday, witness from insurance industry, employee of Golden Rule Insurance Company
——————————————————————
3. Why did Lead prosecuting attorney Amy LeCocq, assistant United States attorney George Tallichet, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Mike Clark, offer the “informed consent” forms into evidence, and allow Clark to tell the jury, the government’s most “damning” charge:

a. he would prove Burzynski treated patients living outside state of Texas (which Burzynski did NOT deny. Why should he ?)

b. Burzynskiknew they were living outside state of Texas (Burzynski’s patients, the media, other courts, always assumed was perfectly legal)

Perhaps because of this, Clark’s delivery was considered dull by many in the audience – “It would put you to sleep,” noted one observer
——————————————————————
4. By contrast, defense attorney John Ackerman (a Wyoming colleague of famed “country lawyer” Jerry Spence):

a. showed jury copy of attorney’s opinion informing Burzynski it would be legal for him to use new experimental drugs in state of Texas

b. read from 1987 Federal Circuit Court opinion which agreed Burzynski’s use of antineoplastons were in fact legal in Texas

c. Repeatedly, defense team turned tables on prosecutor: Over & over, they used introduction of Informed Consent statements to show clinic had in fact taken pains to inform patients that treatment was experimental in nature
——————————————————————
5. 1/9/1997 – government called 1st witness, US postal inspector Barbara Ritchey:

a. Ms. Ritchey testified she’d been assigned to investigate Burzynski in 1993 (for alleged “mail fraud”) & working on case full-time since 3/1995

b. Throughout 1st 2 weeks of trial, prosecutors repeatedly put up enlarged copies of informed consent forms all patients required to sign

c. Some showed out-of-state addresses

d. point was to impress jury with fact:

1) some patients lived outside of Texas

2) Burzynski knew this

e. approach provided opening for team of defense attorneys to have documents read out loud to jury

f. forms clearly informed patients antineoplastons were experimental in nature & had not been approved by FDA

g. forms were explicit there could be no guarantee antineoplastons would reduce or stabilize their cancers

h. Attorney Ramsey astutely pointed out that one crucial element of “fraud” is deceit

i. Without deceit, there can be no fraud, he said

j. “Isn’t that Informed Consent form the absolute, honest golden truth?“

he asked

k. She had to admit it was, thereby undermining government’s main contention
——————————————————————
6. Ramsey had Ms. Ritchey read from 1987 5th Circuit decision which stated Burzynski could continue to prescribe antineoplastons in state of Texas:

a. Decision stated Judge Gabrielle McDonald retained authority to amend or modify her order

b. “In other words,”

boomed the Texas lawyer,

“the FDA had another remedy, didn’t it ?“

“If it felt Dr. B. was violating order by treating out-of-state patients, it could have simply sought clarification, couldn’t it have?”

“Then we wouldn’t all have to sit here for 4 or 5 or 6 weeks of this trial”

Here too, Ritchey had to agree
——————————————————————
7. Mr. Ramsey continued cross examination of Ms. Ritchey:

a. She admitted what had previously been suspected, she & 6 other federal agents had known Burzynski would be out-of-town when they raided his clinic 3/24/1995

b. In dramatic moment, she admitted Informed Consent form was truthful, but took issue with the sentence,

1) “Dr. Burzynski may continue to prescribe antineoplastons in Texas”

She contended that legal decision’s actual language read

2) “Dr. Burzynski may continue to treat patients with antineoplastons in Texas”

“Isn’t that the same thing? “

asked Ramsey

“No,”

said Ritchey

“Sometimes, I go to the doctor & he treats me but he doesn’t prescribe”

Observers seemed non-plussed by this hair-splitting response
——————————————————————
United States postal inspector Barbara Ritchey must have thought she was dealing with people who weren’t as smart as a fifth-grader

She contended the legal decision’s:

1) “Dr. Burzynski may continue to prescribe antineoplastons in Texas”

MEANT:

2) “Dr. Burzynski may continue to treat patients with antineoplastons in Texas”

and likened it to:

“Sometimes, I go to the doctor & he treats me but he doesn’t prescribe”
——————————————————————
Perhaps United States postal inspector Barbara Ritchey and Dr. David H. (“Orac” a/k/a GorskGeek) both came from the same Wacky Tobacky Universe

United States postal inspector

does NOT mean:

United States District Court Judge

U.S. postal inspectors do NOT get to change the wording of a legal document signed by a U.S. Federal District Court Judge

At NO time was it indicated that postal inspector Barbara Ritchey was an “expert witness” in the proper usage of the English Language

You do NOT have to be smarter than a 5th-grader to know this
——————————————————————
According to Chronicle:

“I think this was a government witch hunt,”

said juror Sharon Wray

“I don’t understand why they brought criminal action when they had a civil remedy”
——————————————————————
3/3/1997 “I couldn’t find any victims,”

Coan added (Houston Chronicle)
——————————————————————
Another juror, a 40-year-old engineer named Anthony Batiste, said he favored a guilty verdict

“I couldn’t go into my kitchen & make things”

“Why should somebody else be above the law?”
——————————————————————
If you’re a 40-year-old engineer, and you “couldn’t go into” your kitchen & make things, maybe you do NOT deserve to be called an “Engineer”

I hope you thought of a career change
——————————————————————
Strong sentiments, pro & con, were expressed by jurors on both sides

Jury foreman, John Coan, favored acquittal:

Quoted in New York Times:

“The fact that we didn’t make a unanimous decision one way or another does not mean we didn’t make a decision,”

Coan said

“The decision is that he is neither guilty nor innocent doesn’t mean he doesn’t need to do work within his practice, & the FDA obviously needs to pursue things as well”
——————————————————————
Lead prosecuting attorney Amy LeCocq, assistant United States attorney George Tallichet, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Mike Clark, collectively reminded me of “The Three Stooges”
——————————————————————
9/8/1993 – Public Corruption Working Group Report – The Sentencing (Amy Lecocq) [29]

Well, at least it looks like Amy Lecocq got herself involved in something she might actually be knowledgeable about !
——————————————————————
Faced life in federal prison
Faced up to:

5 years in prison
$250,000 fine
on each of 34 counts of mail fraud

5 years
x
34
=
170 years

$250,000
x
34
=
$8,500,000 MILLION
——————————————————————
up to 3 years in prison

$250,000 fine
for each of 40 counts of violating the food, drug & cosmetic laws

3 years
x
40
=
120 years

$250,000
x
40
=
$10,000,000 MILLION
——————————————————————
TOTAL
——————————————————————
170 years (34 counts of mail fraud)
+
120 years (40 counts of violating the food, drug & cosmetic laws)
=
390 years
——————————————————————
$8,500,000 MILLION (34 counts of mail fraud)
+
$10,000,000 MILLION (40 counts of violating the food, drug & cosmetic laws)
=
$18,500,000 MILLION
——————————————————————
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – 12/7/2013 – How to Crank your Congressperson (according to “The Skeptics”: USA TODAY vs. Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/how-to-crank-your-congressperson-according-to-the-skeptics-usa-today-vs-dr-stanislaw-burzynski/
======================================
[2] – 2/4/1998 – Dr. Ralph Moss – Government Reform and Oversight Committee
——————————————————————
http://www.forhealthfreedom.org/Publications/Monopoly/Moss.html
——————————————————————
http://archive.is/gKNcL
======================================
[3] – The FDA’s Vendetta Against Dr. Burzynski: By Dean Mouscher, Director, Clinical Trials, Burzynski Institute
——————————————————————
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/602961/replies?c=24
======================================
[4] – Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (A nonprofit association dedicated to providing free legal assistance to journalists since 1970): Sources and Subpoenas (Reporter’s Privilege) | Reporters – From the First Amendment Handbook
——————————————————————
http://www.rcfp.org/digital-journalists-legal-guide/sources-and-subpoenas-reporters-privilege
======================================
[5] – 4-5/2008 – From AJR, April/May 2008, A Flurry of Subpoenas, By Kevin Rector
——————————————————————
http://ajrarchive.org/article.asp?id=4511
======================================
[6] – Mass Media Law | Chapter Overview, Protection of News Sources/Contempt Power, Chapter Overview, Constitutional Protection of News Sources:
——————————————————————
http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072492171/student_view0/chapter10/chapter_overview.html
======================================
[7] – 9/18/2013 – Online News Association
——————————————————————
http://journalists.org/2013/09/18/ona-working-to-ensure-federal-shield-law-truly-protects-journalists/
======================================
[8] – 9/24/2013 – Desks and Blogs » Paying attention to the shield law’s critics – Journalists shouldn’t blindly support the shield law without taking in the whole picture, Posted on Tuesday Sep 24th at 10:50am, By Eric Newton
——————————————————————
http://cjr.org/303546/show/e0254cdea27dd5aabd57553cc5190110/?
——————————————————————
http://m.cjr.org/303546/show/e0254cdea27dd5aabd57553cc5190110/?
======================================
[9] – 11/21/2013 – Critiquing: Eric Merola and Stanislaw Burzynski respond to the FDA findings and the USA TODAY story. Hilarity ensues:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/httpscienceblogs-cominsolence20131118eric-merola-and-stanislaw-burzynski-respond-to-the-fda-findings-and-the-usa-today-story-hilarity-ensues/
======================================
[10] – 6/4/2013 – Stanislaw Burzynski versus the BBC:
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/04/stanislaw-burzynski-versus-the-bbc/
======================================
[11] – 12/2002 – Interview with Dr. Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D. Biochemistry (12/2002):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/12/httpwww-cancerinform-orgaburzinterview-html/
======================================
[12] – 11/22/2013 – Is anyone attending the 4th Quadrennial Meeting of the Society of Neuro-Oncology in San Francisco right now?:
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/11/22/is-anyone-attending-the-4th-quadrennial-meeting-of-the-society-of-neuro-oncology-in-san-francisco-right-now/
======================================
[13] – 12/4/2013 – USA TODAY and “The Skeptics” selling false hope to cancer patients:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/12/04/usa-today-and-the-skeptics-selling-false-hope-to-cancer-patients/
======================================
[14] – 9/1986 and 1/1987 – THE DISEASE OF INFORMATION: AN INTERVIEW WITH STANISLAW BURZYNSKI (The following interview was conducted in Sept., 1986, and January, 1987, and was first published in the Townsend Letter for Doctors, June 1989 – Reprinted with permission from the author):
——————————————————————
http://www.encognitive.com/node/4174
======================================
[15] – 7/4/1996– Cameron Frye Has a Big Idea (Bob Burtman):
——————————————————————
http://www.houstonpress.com/1996-07-04/news/cameron-frye-has-a-big-idea/full/
======================================
[16] – 1996 – Cancer doctor disregarded warnings, prosecutor says (Lubbock Avalanche-Journal):
——————————————————————
http://lubbockonline.com/news/010997/cancer.htm
======================================
[17] – 2/22/1997 – Trial of Houston Doctor Linked to Unapproved Drugs Goes to Jury:
——————————————————————
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/22/us/trial-of-houston-doctor-linked-to-unapproved-drugs-goes-to-jury.html
======================================
[18] – 2/24/1997 – Houston cancer doctor’s trial resumes (The Victoria Advocate):
——————————————————————
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=861&dat=19970224&id=l08KAAAAIBAJ&sjid=3UoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3982,4466569
======================================
[19] – 3/4/1997 – Deadlocked jurors force mistrial in case of cancer doctor (By TERRI LANGFORD Associated Press Writer):
——————————————————————
http://www.texnews.com/texas97/mistrial030497.html
======================================
[20] – 5/27/1997 – Long legal squabble ends for Burzynski: Embattled cancer doctor acquitted (Lubbock Avalanche-Journal):
——————————————————————
http://lubbockonline.com/news/052897/long.htm
======================================
[21] – 5/28/1997 – Embattled cancer doctor acquitted of contempt charge (By JOAN THOMPSON / Associated Press Writer):
——————————————————————
http://www.texnews.com/texas97/doc052897.html
======================================
[22] – 6/1997 – Burzynski Acquitted Of Fraud Judge Declares Mistrial on Other
Prosecutor George Tallichet said that Burzynski had not conformed to the standards of the Food, Drug …
——————————————————————
http://m.lef.org/magazine/mag97/june-report97.htm
======================================
[23] – 7/7/1997 – Free Market Medicine:
——————————————————————
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/1895-free-market-medicine
======================================
[24] – 12/15/1997 – FDA vendetta against cancer doc:
——————————————————————
http://www.science-bbs.com/117-life-extension/9624d6ce44477915.htm
======================================
[25] – 1/1/2002 – Cancer Patient Thomas Navarro Dies at Age Six [medical freedom case]:
——————————————————————
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/602961/posts
======================================
[26] – Praktikos Institute
——————————————————————

Click to access Selections-from-FDA.pdf

======================================
[27] – Dr Stanislaw Burzynski — Antineoplaston Therapy — Articles:
——————————————————————
http://www.rexresearch.com/burzynski/burzynski.htm
======================================
[28]
——————————————————————
http://www.pdfio.com/k-2065004.html
======================================
[29] – 9/8/1993 – Public Corruption Working Group Report – The Sentencing (Amy Lecocq)
——————————————————————

Click to access ussc_report_publiccorruption_19930908.pdf

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