Pete Cohen films Pat and Steve Clarkson

Posted on January 15, 2014 by didymusjudasthomas

——————————————————————
Pat Clarkson, and I come from Danville, California, which is near San Francisco, and I have multiple myeloma; which is not a common cancer
About 20,000 people in the United States have the disease, and about 10,000 die every year, and 10,000 get the disease
So it’s a relatively small number of folks,that have it
So it’s not well
It’s not as well researched as some of the other cancers, um, but we’re hoping that the, um, Burzynski Clinic can help me

There’s not much hope for me
I, I have probably, a, uh, prognosis of a couple, couple years
Maybe a year or two to live, um, without, um, without I, I, an alternative method of treatment, and that’s why
——————————————————————
If I could say this a little differently
The conventional medicine, or what we would call conventional medicine, which is, you know, chemotherapy, radiation, uh, surgery; which is not possible with, uh, multiple myeloma because there is no, no large tumor that can be surgically removed, uh, the doctors have told us basically there is no cure, and that, and I, I say doctors; this is our local oncologist, um, and the head of oncology at, um, University of California, San Francisco; which is a very well respected school, uh, hospital, that there is no, uh, no reasonable possibility of a cure
Um, by contrast, uh, Dr. Burzynski, we have found out, has, uh, cured several people with myeloma, and he’s cured many other people with different kinds of cancer
The problem is, uh, that the FDA in its wisdom, will not allow us to, uh, be treated with the, uh, antineoplastons that are the backbone of the Burzynski therapy
——————————————————————
Well they’ve told us that they don’t have evidence that it’s, um, that it’s an effective treatment
Uh, that, they don’t have evidence that it’s not, non-toxic; which in fact, uh, is incorrect because the FDA does have evidence that it’s non-toxic
——————————————————————
Through the Senator’s office at the, the FDA is saying that they, they don’t know for sure that it’s not toxic; that’s not true, uh, and they don’t know that it will cure the disease, and therefor they can’t approve it
We’re willing
Pat’s willing to take the odds of a treatment, that is not 100% guaranteed, and let’s face it, most of the treatments that are approved by the FDA, are toxic, and are not guaranteed
So we don’t really understand, uh, why they have an issue with it, except that, uh, there’s an awful lot of money involved
Um, one of the peculiarities of the FDA, we understand they’re, by law, required to get much of their funding from the very companies that they’re supposed to be supervising

As, as I understand, uh, the Constitution, there is no basis in the Constitution for the Federal Government to be telling, an American, who they can use for a doctor or what drugs that they can use for, uh, their, their illness
Yet, over the years this, uh, this power has grown and been accepted at the FDA, and now it’s a, uh, uh, it’s, it’s out of control
——————————————————————
We have asked the FDA what is different about my case
Why I don’t get an exemption
We don’t have a response yet to that, to that question
——————————————————————
While doctors are generally very bright; they have to be to get through medical school, but they don’t have any training in critical, critical thinking, and most of them that I run into are not particularly good critical thinkers
The world they live in is to memorize a set of symptoms, then to look up or remember what those symptoms suggest in terms of a disease, and then remember or look up what the treatment is

So, here we have, um, uh, Dr. Burzynski, who is also a Ph.D biochemist, which is a, a interesting and, and very useful, uh, combination, who discovered that, um, in people who have cancer, they generally don’t have, or they have very reduced levels of what he now calls, uh, antineoplastons, and neoplaston is simply the medical jargon for cancer; so it’s anti-cancer, in effect, um, he discover the people who, uh, don’t have cancer, do have, high levels of this, and determined from research that these are controlled by, um, by the genes, and it’s part of the body’s immune system, in effect
We all produce cancer cells everyday of our lives
Like we produce bac, or have bacteria in our gi, digestive tract, that is controlled, by certain genes
In this case, um, he discovered that by, uh, by injecting, uh, or infusing, uh, these, they’re called peptides, peptide, that the patient could be helped
How, how innocuous, or how anti-toxic, can you have
It’s a, it’s a substance th, the body itself produces, unless the genes have shut down
Which is the case in, uh, some, in most, or at least half I guess, of multiple myeloma cases
——————————————————————
My, my message would be that they don’t have the right to tell me to hold a, a life or a death, um, decision
They, they don’t have the right to tell me that, um, I can’t have treatment that I seek, or I will die
I don’t think they have that right to do that
——————————————————————
Treatment is available
Uh, it is our choice
We are free Americans
We’re well informed
Uh, well educated
It should be our choice, and the Federal government in any, in any form should not have the authority to interfere with that
——————————————————————
Uh, nothing’s guaranteed in this world, um, but we’ve got, um, we’ve got some confidence in this clinic and in this treatment
======================================
Pat & Steve Clarkson
January 27, 2012
Houston, Texas
6:25
2/3/2012
——————————————————————

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

Pete Cohen talks to Steve and Mary Jo Siegel

Posted on January 14, 2014 by didymusjudasthomas

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
——————————————————————

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

Posted in Cohen, Pete, Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski | Tagged "48 Hours", "8 languages", "anti-AIDS", "anti-HIV drugs", "big story", "bone marrow transplant", "breast cancer", "Burzynski’s treatment", "Cancer experts", "cast off", "CAT scans", "childhood leukemia’s", "conventional therapy", "conventional” medicine", "critical analysis", "critical thought", "Dana-Farber", "decision-making", "Dr. B", "Dr. Barbara", "Dr. Burzynski", "Dr. Burzynski’s clinic", "Dr. Burzynski’s treatment", "Dr. Peter Rosen", "Dr. Rosen", "entrenched financial interests", "expert witnesses", "failed modality", "fell out", "felt well", "FINALLY, "financial interests", "good, "ground zero", "high-dose chemotherapy", "Hodgkin lymphoma", "https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2014/01/14/pete-cohen-talks-to-steve-and-mary-jo-siegel/", "http://youtu.be/DoeWuDRTFjg", "huge, "insurance companies", "insurance company", "legal grounds", "life partner", "mainstream medicine", "Mary Jo Siegel", "medical record", "medical records", "Multiple myeloma", "non-Hodgkins lymphoma", "non-toxically", "normal life", "ovarian cancer", "patient group web-site", "Pete Cohen talks to Steve and Mary Jo Siegel https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2014/01/14/pete-cohen-talks-to-steve-and-mary-jo-siegel/", "Pete Cohen talks to Steve and Mary Jo Siegel", "Pete Cohen", "pharmaceutical companies", "political constituency", "political force", "political lobby", "political pressure", "private funding", "Quack watch", "radiation therapy", "Saul Green", "secondary cancer", "she’s", "side effects", "spontaneous remission", "stage 4", "Stanford Medical", "Steve and Mary Jo Siegel", "Steve Siegel", "Testicular cancer", "Texas State Board", "Texas State Medical Board", "University of Southern California", "Washington bureaucrats", "Washington lawmakers", "X-rays", #FAILED, above, absolutely, accept, acceptable, access, adopted, against, agents, AIDS, albeit, allow, Allowing, already, amazing feeling, Americans, answer, antineoplaston, antineoplastons, applied, apply, approved, Approximately, aside, ask, associated, associates, Australia, away, awhile, “bureaucrats”, “Conventional cancer treatment", “Look, “non-toxic”, “Thank you!”, “The B Team”, backgrounds, bacteria, bad, based, basis, beat, bee, Bees, being, believe, benefit, best, better, Bible, blacken, body, Boston, brave, bring, brought, building, bureaucracy, Burzynski Clinic, CALL, came, Cancer, cancerous, cancers, capricious, care, cares, caring, case, cases, cells, certain, chance, Chemo, CHEMOTHERAPY, CHILDREN, cleaned, clear, clearly, clinic, close, come, comes, coming, compacted, compared, complain, complaining, Congress, contact, conventional, countries, country, couple, court, created, CURE, cured, cures, dearest, death, debunk, decide, decided, deem, demean, describe, die, died, different, disappeared, discuss, disease, Doctor, doctors, doing, drove, drug, dubious, during, efficaciousness, entrenched, especially, eventually, ever, everybody, everyday, everything, everywhere, exact, exception, exceptions, expanded, expert, experts, F.D.A., fact, family, fatal, feel, feeling, fight, fighting, filed, find, first, following, food, force, forget, forward, found, free, friends, front, fund, funding, funds, fungus, Future, genius, gentle, glad, going, gone, gotten, government, granted, granting, grateful, greater, group, hair, happen, happens, hard, Harvard, head, heard, Hearing, hearsay, heart, held, help, helped, her, him, Hiroshima, history, HIV, hold, home, hope, horrific, house, Houston, hugged, hundreds, husband, ill, illegal, immediately, IMPORTANT, incurable, initially, institutions, intelligent, interested, Internet, jeopardy, key, kids, kind, knew, know, ladies, later, lawsuit, lead, least, license, Lies, life, light, like, limited, listen, long, looked, looks, love great, lymphoma, making, Many, march, mean, means, medicine, member, mile, millions, modalities, money, most, move, movement, mushroom, mushrooms, neck, needs, negative, never, Nobody, none, nothing, obviously, offer, offering, oncologist, oncologists, oncology, opinion, opportunity, organize, organized, others, over, overjoyed, overseas, paradigm, particular, passed, patient, patients, pay, penny, people, person, place, plans, poison, political, possible", powerful, presence, pressure, prevail, probably, problem, problems, product, production, prognosis, prosecuting, prosecutors, protection, prove, proven, quackery, Quackwatch, question, questionable, Questions, quit, quote, RADIATION, rather, realize, Reason, reasons, recovered, reduce, reduced, reduction, reductions, religion, remember, remission, reputation, rescue, research, resistant, respect, results", rich, rocks, Sad, said, saved, SAY, says, sceptics, school, science, scrutiny, second, sense, sensitive, several, she, shine, show, showed, shrink, shrinking, sick, side, sight, since, Skeptic, smart, society, someday, somehow, something, sometimes, sort, source, speaks, special, specialist, staff, start, started, starting, starts, statistically, stems, stories", story, strong, stuff, successful, successfully, sued, summed, supply, support, surgery, survive, taken, takes, talks, tasked, tasks, tell, Texas, thank, they, think, Thoughts, thriving, through, throughout, time, together, told, totally, touch, tragedy extremely, treat, treated, Treating, treatment, trials, true, TRUTH, trying, tumor, tumors, turned, type, types, U.K., UCLA, ultimately, unbelievable, unbiased, undergo, United States, unless, unquote, uphill, USC, viable, view, viral, voting, walk, walked, wall, wanted, whatever, while, whole, wife, wish, wishes, without, wonderful, work, working, works, world, wrong, wrote, yourself | Leave a reply

Pete Cohen talks with Doug Olson

Posted on January 10, 2014 by didymusjudasthomas

Reply

——————————————————————
My name is Doug Olson
I’m from Nebraska
Western Nebraska
And, uh, my mother has been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer
So, we, uh, middle of November, now this is first of, first of the year, eh, but in the middle of November her weight, she was losing weight, you know
She was suffering from indigestion and, and stomach pain, and so we started to have her checked, uh, for problems with her stomach for ulcers and that kind of thing, and all that proved negative, and they put her on an ulcer medicine anyway, thinking that maybe that would solve the inflammation in her stomach, and, uh, then we decided that we (?) better see another physician, and so we did that, and they then ultra sounded and then CAT scanned and found that she had tumors in her pancreas and in her liver
Uh, many years ago, back in, in the late 70’s, my parents had been involved with, with the cancer, uh, subject in regards to my father’s sister, and then his cousin
He started researching cancer and cancer treatments when his sister passed away, and then, uh, they got in contact with a doctor in Orden, Nebraska, that treated cancer patients with Laetrile, and he also did other, not so ordinary things
He did duculation therapy
Uh, a number of things that were really treatments for the disease rather than just treatments for the symptoms, and, uh, during that time, dad testified at the state legislature; they were trying to work against Dr. Miller’s license
This was the Dr. Miller in Orden, and, uh, so dad testified on, on his behalf
Uh, dad’s cousin was, uh, a patient of his, and she had a brain tumor the size of a lemon, and Dr. Miller put her on, uh, Laetrile treatments on a, on a special diet and some things, uh
——————————————————————
And this was what, in the 70’s ?
——————————————————————
This was back in the, probably the late 70’s, and, so, when they
Well they cured her
She had been sent home from the Mayo Clinic
Given 3 to 6 months to live, and, uh, they had, uh, burned with radiation and cobalt I believe is what they were treating her with at that time
Uh, they burned the, uh, nerves in her eyes so that her eyes crossed
Uh, they sent her home to die
They, uh
She was in a wheelchair
She was a young woman and she had a young child
Wasn’t able to hold that child, and so when my dad saw her, met her, she was in that condition
She was it, in the last 6 months of her life
Gave her a book about, uh, the subject, and told her about Dr. Miller, and her family
She then went to Dr. Miller to see if there was any help for her, and he, and he immediately put her on Laetrile treatment then and, and, uh, the interesting thing about it, looking at his doctor’s protocol; because I’ve come across his protocol, uh, Dr. Miller was also giving his patients antineoplastons, and
——————————————————————
Yeah, because we’ve got this thing here that you gave me
——————————————————————
Mhmm
——————————————————————
Just explain to me what this is
——————————————————————
This was his physician’s protocol, to list, uh, the different medicines a person should, should be on
——————————————————————
If they had cancer
——————————————————————
Uh, if they had cancer, and so, uh, this was given to another friend of ours, a friend of the family, uh, the folks that rented one of our properties, uh, the woman got a, a tumor as well, and this was given to her as part of the regimen she should follow, and she was given Laetrile injections, and then as soon as the injections, uh, were over they went then to pills as the size of the dosage went down, and when you got to pills you got to go home
So, uh, I remember speaking to her at the time
I had a
I was in high school, and I had a summer job with her husband, who was the county engineer
So, uh, we saw them all the time, and she told us, uh, the circumstances when, when she was allowed to come home
She was feeling strong
She said: “I haven’t felt better”
As a part of the diet and the things that, that they had her doing
She said she felt better than she had in many years
So she and her daughter, started a business in town in order to pay for the treatments, and, uh, she recovered
The tumor continued to shrink and shrink until it was nothing
Uh, what had been listed as inoperable, uh, after it shrunk halfway they decided, well maybe we can operate on you
Uh, we think it’s operable now
She said: “Why would I let you operate when what I’m doing is working” ?
But, uh, she is alive yet today and in her mid-80’s and, uh, so, uh, when it came to my mother’s illness, we contacted her, and asked her how she’s doing, and she’s sent this protocol she’s been keeping all these years
Uh, as a result of my parents knowing Dr. Miller back when he was alive
He is, he has passed away, uh, 7 maybe years ago, and, uh, many years ago when they were taking chelation therapy from him, he had given my mother, uh, a flyer on Dr. Burzynski, and, uh, said if anything ever happens to you after I’m gone, this is the man to contact, and so we’ve had that flyer in a file for many years at my parents house, and so when mom got sick she immediately began digging that out and found
——————————————————————
So your mom immediately started thinking, well I need to find that leaflet
That’s what we were told to do
——————————————————————
Yes
——————————————————————
And did, and did she go and speak to an oncologist ?
Did she say that she wanted to come here, or ?
——————————————————————
We had a local physician, who was not an oncologist, that had, that was the 2nd physician we, we consulted, that did the ultrasound and the CAT scan for her and, and they knew that she had tumors, and no we did not go to an on, oncologist from there
——————————————————————
Why ?
——————————————————————
because we knew that we did not want to take their treatments, uh, so we immediately contacted the clinic here in, in Houston, Texas, and, uh, we had to wait on, uh, certain things to be completed
CAT scans
Different things had to be done, and, and information had to be sent down here and examined, and then, uh, after a period of maybe 2 weeks, hassling with information, we were told that, yes, uh, we, they would accept her as a patient, and we were getting in towards the holidays at that time
Would we like to wait until the holidays were over, because Christmas
You know, there would be 5 days off for Christmas, uh, over a weekend and 5 days off for New Years over a weekend, and we would be down here in Houston over those times, but we elected to come anyway because we could get the treatment started right away
——————————————————————
Mhmm
——————————————————————
rather than to wait another month before starting treatments, and, uh, so they, uh, immediately put, put her on antineoplastons and, uh, they sent away the tissue samples to Arizona to have a CARIS test done, and determine what medications would be
——————————————————————
So did you have those results come back ?
——————————————————————
Yes, those results came back quicker than what we expected
——————————————————————
And wh, what did they show ?
——————————————————————
Well they, they show a, a list of treatments that are effective, and against it, and then a list of treatments actually that encourage it’s growth
——————————————————————
Yeah
——————————————————————
So you end up with a list of, uh, approximately 7 on each side
7 good
7 bad
——————————————————————
And these are all different cancer drugs
So what they’re looking at is all
——————————————————————
Yes
——————————————————————
is all the different cancer drugs, and which ones
——————————————————————
And whether we’ve got a, a thousand or 2 thousand different drugs that person might try, and, uh, so
——————————————————————
So the (?) for how to, to try a few of these chemotherapies, but in very small doses
Is that right ?
——————————————————————
There’s 2, 2 chemotherapies
One is an, is an oral chemotherapy that is, uh, quite mild in its side effects, and then, uh, there’s another much stronger one that was, uh, also one of th, the top 2, and, uh, the side effects for it are more varied and more violent, uh, if you will, and, uh, my mother’s had one treatment of that so far, and the treat, the side effects
She did, is suffering from side effects from that particular
——————————————————————
Yeah
——————————————————————
It’s Oxaliplatin, and, uh, some people have very violent side effects but she’s thankfully not had any violent side effects
——————————————————————
So why didn’t you go down the conventional road of having high-dose chemotherapy ?
——————————————————————
Well, when you research the, uh, success rate, with pancreatic cancer, going the normal way, uh, or the normal, uh, road, the success rate is very, very small, and so you’re just guaranteeing, in my opinion, if, if the success rate is 5% or under, uh, you’re introducing yourself to a, a road to death, that’s very unpleasant
——————————————————————
Yeah
——————————————————————
You know, you just want to go home and make yourself very comfortable on painkillers and, and enjoy the rest of your life, uh, if that’s the, if that’s the road you’re planning to take
——————————————————————
Yeah
——————————————————————
Uh, that was our opinion, and so
——————————————————————
What do you think about all the resistance then of, of Dr. Burzynski and all of the kind of, uh, ?
——————————————————————
We have
——————————————————————
(?) people just calling him a
What’s the word ?
——————————————————————
Charlatan
——————————————————————
Charlatan
Yeah
Fraud
——————————————————————
Yes, we, uh, we have seen course, of course these things through our, our life
Dr. Miller
The whole Laetrile treatment thing was something that was, uh, thrown out
You know, it’s pretty well suppressed now
You can go to Mexico and get those treatments
——————————————————————
Why do you think they were, pushed aside ?
This Laetrile
——————————————————————
It’s
——————————————————————
What is Laetrile ?
——————————————————————
Well Laetrile is a naturally occurring, uh, substance that you find in some of our foods
It’s, they call it B17 although, vitamin B17, although there’s some discussion as to whether it’s really a vitamin
Another name for it is Amygdalin
——————————————————————
Amygdalin
Yeah
——————————————————————
Uh, it’s found in peach pits and apricot pits in high levels but there’s a number of other foods that you find it in
Uh, it, it,
I’m not sure, whether this is 100% accurate, but my understanding of it is it’s associated with, with cyanide, and it would be, uh, like an encapsulated cyanide, that as it travels through your body, the cyanide portion, um, does not become available to your body until it becomes in, uh, associated with a cancer cell
——————————————————————
Yeah
——————————————————————
and the cancer cells attack the outer shell of that molecule, and the cyanide becomes, uh, uh, available then, and it kills the cancer cell that’s right there
So it was apparently a very nontoxic substance
Uh, you have regulated dosages
I mean, it seems to me interesting, uh, when a doctor prescribes a dose of chemotherapy, uh, there’s nothing that I can think of much more toxic than a, than a chemotherapy drug, and certainly they’ll kill you if they don’t, uh, give you the right dosage, but it was not seemed, deemed accessible that a byproduct of food; which a doctor could regulate the dosage of as well, could be used as a transfer, cancer treatment
——————————————————————
Yeah
——————————————————————
Uh, and we’ve seen things in the past, as well
When I was a, a very young child, I had a great aunt, that, uh, I was not even aware; at the time I was very young, she was traveling to Texas and getting treatments
Uh, one of them was called the Hoxsey treatment and, uh, she was living a very comfortable life on treatments that she got there
There were 2 treatments in Texas at that time, that, uh, were available
The FDA would come in and raid the clinics, and make just life miserable for them
They got one of them closed down, and that was the one that my great aunt was on, and that treatment was, was pills that she could take, uh, and live quite comfortably, in Nebraska
Once they closed that clinic down, then she had to go down, uh, to the other clinic in Texas, which was a supplement that was a liquid that tasted bad, and she had to make frequent trips, at that point, but still, as long as she could get that treatment she was comfortable and, and lived a normal life
A productive life
Uh, we knew her as our great aunt and, and didn’t even know her, uh, uh, that there was a health problem and, uh, but then the FDA got that clinic closed down
So, as soon as she lost access to those, her treatments, then her cancer which, uh, was no longer able to be controlled, came back strong and, and she died
So, uh, the family had been, had access to this knowledge and this, the FDA’s games with cancer treatments for many years
Um, I’m also married to, a, a gal whose father did blood research as a, he was a Ph.D and worked in university hospitals, in blood research all of his life
He, he discovered a blood protein that was associated with cancer
Uh, it was actually associated more with good health, maybe than you could say with cancer, but he discovered a, a blood coagulation protein, uh, or associated with blood coagulation that would, that could be used as a flag or a test, to see whether a person was healthy or not
Uh, as they applied it to patients in these hospitals, during their research trials, they found that this protein was an indicator whether a person had cancer or thrombosis
Uh, 2 of the very largest killers, and this protein, if present in high enough amounts in our blood, uh, was an indicator that you were healthy, and as the protein’s amount, uh, declined, then it was an indicator that something was wrong, and below a certain amount you knew something was wrong
You better be taking further testing
——————————————————————
Mhmm
——————————————————————
to find out what your problem was
Uh, that has run into resistance
Uh, that (?) has not been approved by the FDA, and, uh, th, our family’s experiences with cancer treatments, cancer drugs, as they’re affected by the FDA, we have determined by our opinion that, uh, it’s, un, unless there’s something that’s going to generate a, a lot of capital, and then a lot of tax money for the Federal Government, the FDA’s not very interested in it
——————————————————————
Yeah
——————————————————————
Uh, so, cynical attitude, but evidence bears it out
——————————————————————
Yeah
——————————————————————
and so we remain cynical until so, until something proves
——————————————————————
Yeah, absolutely
So this is this doctor in, uh, in the 70’s
This is information that he provided
——————————————————————
Yes
——————————————————————
and you can see here that he is obviously, antineoplastic enzymes
See, here obviously
Do you think he meant Dr. Burzynski ?
He just knew of him ?
You have no idea ?
——————————————————————
I have no idea
——————————————————————
He was obviously a fan, if he was someone that eventually said
He said it to you
Did you say he said it to your mum or to your dad?
——————————————————————
To my mom
Probably to mom and dad
——————————————————————
Yeah
——————————————————————
Uh, my mom was the record keeper, and so, she kept the flyer
——————————————————————
Yeah
——————————————————————
but they both took, uh, the, uh, the therapy from, uh, well, the blood therapy
I mentioned it earlier
Suddenly the name’s gone away
——————————————————————
Yeah
——————————————————————
but, uh
——————————————————————
That’s ok
——————————————————————
So
——————————————————————
So what about, um
You know, one of the barriers that we had is, when we spoke to oncologists, they just said, no, you mustn’t come to see this guy
His work isn’t peer-reviewed
He’s a charlatan
Why, why do you think they would say that ?
What
I mean I’m surprised, that these oncologists don’t actually come here, to actually see what, what’s going on
So your opinion about that ?
——————————————————————
My opinion is, that physicians are, very much, tied up, with large pharmaceutical corporations
Uh, I spoke with my father-in-law
My father-in-law had to have research done in, in his Ph.D work, and he had to get cooperation from hospitals, from doctors, and, uh, all of these organizations in order to have the research done that he needed done, ’cause past his lab, when he wants to introduce research, onto a patients, uh, live blood, and he needs to collect specimens from patients, then a whole ‘nother group of, uh, set of authorizations have to be signed and, and he being a Ph.D working with the medical profession all his life, he knew how tied up the medical profession is, by, generally by M.D.’s, that control the money flow, uh, in the medical profession
Ph.D’s do the research, but they have to apply for grants, and typically the grants are controlled by M.D.’s, and so if an M.D. Decides that your, your particular research is either applicable to, uh, something they think will make a lot of money, or it’s the, the quote, uh, popular, popular item of the day
——————————————————————
Yeah
——————————————————————
Politically correct, you name it, then you’re going to get funded
Otherwise, uh, my father-in-law noticed at different times, his research had to be funded out of his own pocket, and at other times, it looked like, it was something that doctors would like, and so they would, he would get funding, but I think that, ah, as he commented, any doctor, coming out of med school, has been contacted by a pharmaceutical company, and has probably signed a contract, that when that pharmaceutical company wants to test a drug, or test an item, that that medical, uh, doctor, will be accessible to them, to test their products
So, with the number of pharmaceutical companies that you have, and all of them recruiting M.D.’s as they come out of med school, and saying, you know, would you be part of our group, you end up under contract with the large pharmaceutical companies
——————————————————————
Mhmm
——————————————————————
and if, if 90% of the doctors are under contract with pharmaceutical companies, to, uh, to cooperate with their drug testing, then large Pharma, has control of virtually all doctors, and so, uh, uh, if you have large Pharma saying, we don’t want to see a cancer cure, that we’re not in control of, we don’t want to see something that makes curing disease cheap, and easy, and food related, then you’re not gonna
They’re going to put the word out to all their doctors: Don’t have any wo, don’t have anything to do with this
Uh, they can come up with, some written material for their, their doctors to read
They send them the evidence
——————————————————————
Mmm
——————————————————————
It may be accurate
It may not be very accurate, and, uh, but it’s just a smear campaign to destroy reputations so that they don’t get hurt financially
——————————————————————
Mhmm
——————————————————————
and, uh, so, uh, that’s the reason I believe
You know, most of these doctors, they don’t have the time, or the expertise to do the research themselves
They can’t read everything, and so when someone they trust, or someone that they’re financially, uh, obligated to, comes down and says: Here’s the stand that we want you to take, and it’s against this particular treatment, or against this doctor, they do what they’re told
——————————————————————
Yeah
——————————————————————
They do what they know best
Uh, my father-in-law, for instance, was, uh, also involved as a professor in these med centers
He taught nutrition, and he said it’s always a, been amazing to me that you can get through med school, and never take a class on, on nutrition
So you can become an M.D., and not understand the value, of nutrition, to a person’s health
That’s a problem
Uh, he recognized it as a problem
I recognize it as a problem because I particularly believe that most of our ill health is because how we treat our bodies
What we eat
——————————————————————
Mhmm
——————————————————————
Whether we exercise or don’t
Whether we provide our body with a way to flush the poisons or not
Uh, healthy living, and if you don’t teach our medical profession, healthy living, how can they teach their patients
——————————————————————
Mhmm
——————————————————————
So this, this whole system is, is just flawed in some ways, and weak in other ways, and, uh, controlled, for the purposes of commerce, instead of the public
——————————————————————
Yeah
So you, you think it’s a good idea treating people as an individual and finding out what they need as opposed to like carpet bombing them ?
——————————————————————
Absolutely
When we understood the, the individualized approach, here at the Burzynski Clinic, that they would take where they would test the cancer cells, uh, against all of these treatments and all of these chemotherapy treatments and, and anything else that might be out there that would, would treat cancer, and come back with a, a individualized care approach to the individualized cells of cancer that my mother has, that’s when we knew that we had to come here
We wondered, and I’ve told my friends, and everybody wonders, that oughta be the standard approach everywhere
Why wouldn’t you test, every cancer, and see what it is that’s gonna treat it best ?
You, you tell me
======================================
Doug Olson chats with Pete Cohen
January 2011
25:00
11/9/2012
——————————————————————

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

Posted in Cohen, Pete, Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski | Tagged "apricot pits", "blood coagulation protein", "blood coagulation", "blood protein", "blood research", "blood therapy", "brain tumor", "cancer cell", "cancer cells", "cancer cure", "Cancer Drugs", "cancer treatment", "cancer treatments", "carpet bombing", "CAT scanned", "CAT scans", "chemotherapy drug", "county engineer", "dad’s cousin", "doctor’s protocol", "Doug Olson chats with Pete Cohen", "Doug Olson", "Dr. Burzynski", "Dr. Miller", "duculation therapy", "eyes crossed", "family’s", "father-in-law", "federal government", "good, "great aunt", "high school", "high-dose", "https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2014/01/10/pete-cohen-talks-with-doug-olson/", "ill health", "Laetrile injections", "Laetrile treatments", "large Pharma", "large pharmaceutical companies", "live blood", "local physician", "losing weight", "M.D.’s", "Mayo Clinic", "med centers", "med school", "medical profession", "mother’s", "New Years", "normal life", "Orden, "pancreatic cancer", "peach pits", "peer-reviewed", "person’s health", "Pete Cohen talks with Doug Olson https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2014/01/10/pete-cohen-talks-with-doug-olson/", "Pete Cohen", "Ph.D’s", "pharmaceutical company", "pharmaceutical corporations", "physician’s protocol", "record keeper", "side effect", "side effects", "state legislature", "stomach pain", "success rate", "summer job", "ulcer medicine", "ultra sounded", "vitamin B17", "Western Nebraska", absolutely, accept, access, accessible, accurate, affected, against, alive, allowed, amazing, amounts, Amygdalin, another, antineoplastic, antineoplaston, antineoplastons, apparently, applicable, applied, apply, approach, approved, Approximately, Arizona", aside, associated, ATTACK, attitude, authorizations, available, aware, “cancer patients", “Down, B17, bad, barriers, believe, below, best, better, blood, bodies, body, book, burn, burned, Burzynski Clinic, business, byproduct, CALLING, campaign, Cancer, cancerous, cancers, capital, care, Caris, certain, Certainly, charlatan, cheap, checked, chelation, Chemo, chemotherapies, CHEMOTHERAPY, child, Christmas, circumstances, class, clinic, clinics, closed, cobalt, collect, comfortable, comfortably, commented, commerce, completed, condition, consulted, contact, contacted, continued, contract, control, Controlled, conventional, cooperation, cousin, cured, curing, cyanide, cynical, dad, daughter, death, decided, Decides, declined, deemed, destroy, determine, determined, diagnosed, die, died, diet, different, digging, discovered, discussion, disease, Doctor, doctors, dosage, dosages, dose, doses, drug, drugs, during, earlier, easy, eat, effective, elected, encapsulated, encourage, enjoy, enzymes, eventually, evidence, examined, exercise, expected, experiences, expertise, eyes, family, fan, father, FDA, feeling, felt, financially, find, finding, flag, flawed, flow, flush, flyer, folks, follow, food, foods, found, fraud, frequent, friend, fund, funded, further, gal, games, generate, getting, grant, grants, group, growth, guaranteeing, Guy, halfway, hassling, health, healthy, help, her, high, Holidays, home, hospital, hospitals, house, Houston, Hoxsey, http://youtu.be/DO-MnxHBOis, hurt, husband, idea, illness, immediately, indicator, indigestion, individual, individualized, inflammation, information, injections, inoperable, instance, interested, interesting, introduce, introducing, involved, keeping, killers, kills, knew, knowing, knowledge, lab, laetrile, large, largest, leaflet, lemon, levels, license, life, like, liquid, list, listed, live, lived, liver, living, looking, lost, M.D.", married, material, medical, medications, medicines, mentioned, Mexico, mild, miserable, molecule, mom, money, mother, mum, naturally occurring, Nebraska, negative, nerves, nontoxic, nothing, noticed, nutrition, obligated, obviously, oncologist, oncologists, oncology, operable, operate, opinion, opposed, ORAL, order, ordinary, organizations, otherwise, outer, own, Oxaliplatin, painkillers, Pancreas, pancreatic, parents, part, particular, passed, patient, patients, pay, people, period, person, Ph.D, Pharma, physician, physicians, pills, planning, pocket, poisons, Politically correct, popular, portion, prescribes, present, probably, problem, problems, productive, PRODUCTS, Professor", properties, protein, proteins, protocol, proved, proves, provide, provided, public, pushed, quicker, RADIATION, raid, read, Reason, recognize, recognized, recovered, recruiting, regimen, regulate, regulated, related, Remain, remember, rented, reputations, research, researching, resistance, result, results", samples, saying, says, seemed, she, shell, shrink, shrunk, sick, signed, sister, size, smear, solve, speak, speaking, special, specimens, spoke, stand, started, starting, stomach, strong, stronger, subject, substance, success, suffering, supplement, suppressed, surprised, symptoms, system, taking, tasted, taught, tax, teach, test, testified, testing, Texas, thankfully, themselves, therapy, think, thinking, thousand, thrombosis, through, thrown, tied, tissue, told, town, toxic, traveling, travels, treat, treated, Treating, treatment, treatments, trials, trips, trust, trying, tumor, tumors, typically, ulcers, ultrasound, understand, understanding, understood, University, unpleasant, value, varied, violent, virtually, vitamin, weak, weekend, weight, wheelchair, whole, woman, work, worked, working, written, wrong, young, yourself | Leave a reply

Pete Cohen talks with Burzynski Patient

Posted on January 8, 2014 by didymusjudasthomas

Reply

——————————————————————
2010 I was laying in on my couch; and I had been treated for cancer in the past, but evidentially reoccurrence, and I, I was so sick on my bed
Actually on the couch
I couldn’t get up
My neighbor called me, uh, and, uh, I couldn’t even, I had the phone next to me and I could answer it, but I think I was laying on the couch for about 2 days
Finally got a nurse over there to check my temperature, at 105.8
They rushed me to the hospital
Didn’t even give me but a few days to live (laugh), and, uh, they wanted to treat me and do so forth, but my, uh, sister-in-law had been reading a little about the Burzynski Clinic
She gave me some information on it
There was a few other places that I was looking at, but I was felt lead to come here, and, uh, actually the doctors wouldn’t even allow me out of the hospital to come here
They said I would never make it, and so, uh, my brother who insisted upon getting me out there
So I came out
Took a, a van
Took it
Came out here, and, uh, I couldn’t walk
Couldn’t hold a pencil in my hand
I could hardly sit up in a chair (laugh), much less anything else
And, uh, within, with just within a few weeks of, of some treatment I could actually get up and walk and so forth
Then as time went, I was able to walk a little more, and then I was able to drive, and now I’m being able to read and write and the whole thing, so, and as of today I just got my final report, and that final report, (?) the last report that I’ve actually, looked like there’s no active cancer at all
There’s some tumors left and some little shades here
Scar tissue
So, I’m continuing on, on the treatment, but so far, I thank God, and I’m still here, and, uh, gave me some extra time here
So I’m thankful
——————————————————————
Wow
So when were you first diagnosed with ?
——————————————————————
2003
I was diagnosed with, uh, lymphoma
Uh, we were going in for heart repla, my 6th hernia operation (laugh) and the found it in my abdomen, and so they immediately took me to the, get a port and get me on the chemo and so forth, and, uh, the 1st chemo treatment I, I almost didn’t, I almost didn’t survive
I was rushed to the hospital
They, they didn’t expect me to make it the night
However, I did make it, and a couple times there were a couple problems there
Then I went through radiation and some, uh, some other treatment for about 2 or 3 years here
Some remission, uh
——————————————————————
And what was your health like during that time ?
——————————————————————
Uh, it was, my immune system was quite down
I was catching colds
I was getting pneumonia and things
Uh, not pneumonia but almost on the edge of it but always weak, and, uh, coming here, you know, it, it’s a lot different
It, its reach a little more compassionately
There’s a little bit more, uh, with not as much side effects and hardly as much side effects as, as, as the other treatments
Still been able to drive, fly, and everything else and, and, uh, so, uh, with the, I, I just find with the multi-approach that they have here, uh, you know, all the different ways they attack it, not just one or two different ways that should become standard, that doctors actually looked outside the box, and discovered things that, uh, uh, are, are just fantastic, and that’s one of the things
I like to do a lot of research, and I just found, what I found here just clicked, and thank God I’m here today
So (laughing)
——————————————————————
Wow
So the 1st time you had, when you were diagnosed
——————————————————————
2000
——————————————————————
2000 you had chemotherapy
——————————————————————
Yes
Radiation treatment, and I had some Zebulon radiation treatment and so forth
——————————————————————
And then, how long were you kinda, well you can’t (?)
——————————————————————
Well (?), 2007 and then, uh, they wanted to do a bone marrow transplant, and they had to give me more dose of chemo which would have been stronger than the 1st, and I almost didn’t make it the 1st time
So I just
——————————————————————
You said “No”
——————————————————————
I said I just, I just won’t
I can’t do that
——————————————————————
And what did your oncologist say ?
——————————————————————
Uh, well, he didn’t have much of a choice
I didn’t really wanna take that route
He says “Well, there’s no other choice,” basically
——————————————————————
There’s nothing more we can do for you
——————————————————————
Well, no
That’s, that’s, that’s
——————————————————————
(?) go home and die
——————————————————————
Well, no
That was their
That was their next line of treatment, that, and that was it
Bone marrow transplants, so forth, uh, which, you know, that’s within their perimeter, but here he treats it a little but more outside, with the different, different methods that he has, with the DNA and the, and the, uh, uh, treating the vascular part of the cell, uh, and the tumor, to choke off the supply of the nutrients, and so forth
Uh, just the whole multi-faceted approach, which actually, uh, which, which I, when I read it I said “Wow, here’s one that’s really on top of this thing,” and, and I know there’s been some, uh, uh, uh, envy sometimes from the (laughing) medical field, and that’s just natural of anything
I mean, I’ve been in real estate for years, and worked, uh, different ways that, you know, when you come up with a different method, a lot of people don’t want to change so easy
So I’m pretty familiar with that
Uh, so I just, I just have found that, uh, uh, just the overall way I’ve been treated here
It’s just, it’s just really refreshing
——————————————————————
So you, you, you came down here when, which, in?
——————————————————————
November 2010
——————————————————————
You came down (?)
——————————————————————
From Miami
From actually Fort Lauderdale
——————————————————————
Right
And, um, how soon, you said it was in a couple of weeks you were
——————————————————————
Yeah, within, within a few weeks I was actually starting to feel a bit better
I was starting to walk a bit more
I couldn’t even walk 10 feet without, you know, being so exhausted
Then I’d walk up to 50 feet
Then I’d walk up to 100 feet
Then I’d, by the time Christmas came around I flew back to Orlando to visit my sister and, uh, I was actually able to walk about 5 or 6 blocks to go to the grocery store and back
Got, got lost somewhere
——————————————————————
What was that like ?
You know, the realization that you were alive and you were well again ?
——————————————————————
Well, you know, uh, uh, again, uh, I was at the point before, and I have my, I have peace with my maker so I don’t know, one way, way I’d have gone if have been happy (?) but I,
——————————————————————
You were prepared to go
——————————————————————
but I’m prepared to go, but I have a young daughter and, uh, and a lot of family still here
So I didn’t wanna, I didn’t wanna go just yet (laughing)
So I’m thankful, with the treatment and by the grace of God I’m still here, and so, I look at, uh, uh, uh, you know, where I was at
Uh, I just, uh, realized the direction I was given to come out here, uh, and, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, took advantage of it, and you see what, what took place
So I’m thankful
——————————————————————
And, and what, what treatment were you on when you 1st came here ?
——————————————————————
I wasn’t really on any treatment at the time
I, I, I, I wasn’t going to go back and do the bone marrow although it’s still an option and some people might wanna use it
I just wanted to do it different, way
——————————————————————
And what treatment did they put on, on, put you on when you came here ?
——————————————————————
Uh, well they gave me, I did take some infusions to get my health back into shape
I was, uh, uh, a little malnourished here and there, uh, they uh, uh, uh
I’m not really coherent really what was going on back then
——————————————————————
Yeah, right
——————————————————————
My brother, and sister-in-law, and my sister were all here with me
They were kinda keeping on top of things
I was kinda trying to just keep breathing
——————————————————————
Yeah
——————————————————————
(laughing)
——————————————————————
So, uh, and what about
——————————————————————
I vaguely remember some of the things I went through
I couldn’t even get out of bed in some instances, and my folks had to help me here and there
So
——————————————————————
What about now ?
——————————————————————
Uh, in, in regarding ?
——————————————————————
Your health now
What, what
——————————————————————
Well, uh, I, I, I feel, uh, I feel good
I mean, there, there’s still, uh
I mean I
I’m, uh
I used to play football years ago
I still have a lot of injuries from that and I’m still (laughing)
——————————————————————
Yeah
——————————————————————
I’m walking around with, but other than that I feel pretty good
I mean I, you know, I’m very thankful, I’m
I’ve been able to go out and do a number of things I hadn’t been able to do before
I spend time with my daughter as much as I can, and I’m very grateful for that
It makes a big difference
Uh
——————————————————————
Yeah, I bet
——————————————————————
Um, I just, uh, uh, I’m grateful for, for, you know, the way the doctors treat and the staff here
Uh, the I.V. nurses have just, I mean, uh, have just been phenomenal for me and I’m just, I’m very grateful for what they’ve done here
The staff
The welcoming committee
Everybody else
They keep on top of what’s going on
They know where you’re at
——————————————————————
So why do you think more people aren’t treated the way you’re treated as far as cancer’s concerned ?
——————————————————————
Well I, well I think there’s, uh, you know, uh
Anytime there’s anything new, there’s always a hesitation, uh, which in a way is reasonable, but when you begin to see it documented and coming forth to be true, then you pretty much know it’s more established, and so you, uh, are more willing to go in that direction and, uh, I, uh, what I went through before I didn’t really want to go through again, uh, with the chemo and the radiation and so forth
Uh, I just, uh, uh, you know, I almost didn’t last through it
So I, I was just looking for something different and this, this is where I came
So I’m, I’m thankful for it, uh, and I’ve mentioned it to a number of people, that have asked me, uh, over the course of the year, and I’ve, been able to talk to a number of people that have been here
I mean, I’ve met people from, uh, South Africa, Turkey, uh, Japan, ah, Australia
They’d all come over here for treatment
So, I mean, I’ve kept in contact with a number of them
So it’s really a joy to meet some of the other people treated successfully here
So, uh, yeah, uh, uh, I just,
Maybe, uh, you know, with the, with the set way that the medical field is, resistant in change, plus there’s a big, you know there’s, uh, big monetary issue about, you know, something comes in, it’s a little bit more efficient
You know, I don’t want to get into a lot of the motives, but I’m just grateful for what
——————————————————————
Mmm
——————————————————————
uh, they’ve done here for me, so, and it’s been successful so far, so I’m thankful

I know how the resistance is, when there’s something new that comes along, and what happens, uh, there may be a monetary motive to prevent, uh, you know, the, the, I hate to say that but we’re human, and so, you know, if, if, if, somebody comes up with something that’s a better way to treat, there’s all kinds of things that the person goes through their mind and their heart to what they’re thinking about, uh, you know, it’s kind of a threatening thing to the industry because they, they’re going to lose out on it
——————————————————————
Yeah
——————————————————————
if they’re not on top of that
So, it becomes a threat in a sense, and it shouldn’t be, but that’s human nature
A lot of times human nature comes out that way and you see it in anything
You see it in the medical field
You see it in, in the real estate field
You see it in the legal field
You see it in all kinds of things to where it can get into a self-fulfilling type of thing, when something comes along, that’s very profitable
It’s not necessarily always going to get in the forefront because it’s, there’s a lot of, uh, blocks and blockades in the way to prevent that from happening
Some, some of it good and some of it bad, and that’s just because of human motives, uh, of competition, so forth
So
======================================
Burzynski Patient Interview #1
January 2011
11:57
11/9/2012
——————————————————————

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

Posted in Cohen, Pete, Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski | Tagged "bone marrow transplant", "Bone marrow transplants", "bone marrow", "Burzynski Patient Interview #1", "Fort Lauderdale", "good, "grocery store", "https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2014/01/08/pete-cohen-talks-with-burzynski-patient/", "human motives", "human nature", "I.V. nurses", "immune system", "medical field", "monetary issue", "monetary motive", "multi-approach", "multi-faceted", "Pete Cohen talks with Burzynski Patient https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2014/01/08/pete-cohen-talks-with-burzynski-patient/", "Pete Cohen", "real estate", "scar tissue", "self-fulfilling", "side effects", "sister-in-law", "South Africa", "welcoming committee", abdomen, active, advantage, alive, answer, approach, Australia, bad, bed, blockades, blocks, breathing, brother, Burzynski Clinic, Burzynski patient“, called, Cancer, cancerous, cell, change, Chemo, CHEMOTHERAPY, choice, choke, Christmas, coherent, colds, comes up with something that’s a better, compassionately, competition, concerned, contact, continuing, couch, daughter, diagnose, diagnosed, die, difference, different, direction, discovered, DNA, doctors, documented, dose, drive, easy, efficient, envy, established, evidentially, exhausted, familiar, family, fantastic, flew, fly, folks, football, forefront, found, grace, grateful, hand, happens, happy, hate, health, heart, help, hernia, hesitation, hospital, http://youtu.be/lzq7zVSXmAM, human, immediately, industry, information, infusions, injuries, insisted, instances, Japan, joy, keeping, laying, legal, lose, lost, lymphoma, maker, malnourished, medical, meet, method, Miami, mind, motives, natural, nature, necessarily, neighbor, nurse, nutrients, oncologist, operation, Orlando, outside, overall, peace, pencil, people, perimeter, person, phenomenal, PHONE, places, play, pneumonia, port, prepared, prevent, problems, profitable, RADIATION, read, reading, realization, realized, reasonable, refreshing, remember, remission, reoccurrence, report, research, resistance, resistant, rushed, sense, shades, shape, sick, sister, staff, stronger, successful, successfully, supply, survive, temperature, thankful, threat, threatening, treat, treated, Treating, treatment, treatments, treats, tumor, tumors, Turkey, vaguely, vascular, walk, walking, weak, whole, willing, worked, write, Zebulon | Leave a reply

Cancer: It’s what’s Best for Business (WW3 – World War Hypocrisy)

Posted on December 14, 2013 by didymusjudasthomas

Reply

David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., F.A.C.S., is a racist and a natural born killer

That’s right !

Dr. Gorski hates #cancer

He’s a bigot when it comes to breast cancer

Gorski sleeps, breathes, and blogs about breast cancer

He is an academic surgical oncologist specializing in breast surgery and oncologic surgery (Surgical Oncology Attending) at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, Michigan specializing in breast cancer surgery, where he also serves as team leader for the Breast Cancer Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center, Co-Chair, Cancer Committee, Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center, medical director of the Alexander J. Walt Comprehensive Breast Center at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center (2010-present), Co-Leader of the Breast Cancer Biology Program, and the American College of Surgeons Committee on Cancer (ACS CoC) Cancer Liaison Physician as well as Associate Professor of Surgery at the Wayne State University School of Medicine; Faculty (2008-present), and member of the faculty of the Graduate Program in Cancer Biology at Wayne State University, MiBOQI project director (clinical champion) for Karmanos Cancer Center, site project director of the Michigan Breast Oncology Quality Initiative, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, a partnership between Karmanos and the University of Michigan, the new program co-director (Co-Medical Director) of the Michigan Breast Oncology Quality Initiative (MiBOQI); a state-wide initiative to improve the quality of breast cancer care using evidence-based guidelines, serves as the co-director of the Comprehensive Breast Center and is co-leader of the Breast Cancer Biology Program at Karmanos and Wayne State University School of Medicine, a Wayne State University Physician Group surgeon and chief of the Section of Breast Surgery (Breast Surgery Section) for the Wayne State University School of Medicine (2009-present), serves as an associate professor of surgery and Oncology at Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan, and Treasurer and on the Board of Directors, and also serves the Institute for Science in Medicine as head of its childhood immunization committee

Prior to joining Karmanos and Wayne State University School of Medicine, was an associate professor of surgery at The Cancer Institute of New Jersey and the UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, NJ, as well as a member of the Joint Graduate Program in Cell & Developmental Biology at Rutgers University in Piscataway, N.J.

1984 – Graduation with Honors and High Distinction in Chemistry

1994 – MetroHealth Medical Center Resident Research

He attended the University of Michigan Medical School, received his B.S. in chemistry from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, medical degree (M.D.) from the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, University of Chicago Fellowship, Surgical Oncology, Case Western Reserve University / University Hospitals Case Medical Center Internship, General Surgery, Case Western: Reserve University / University Hospitals Case Medical Center Residency, General Surgery, and received his Ph.D. in cellular physiology at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio

1998 – American Board of Surgery

Assistant Professor of Surgery UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey

1999 – 2006: Assistant Professor of Surgery

1999 – 2008: Active, Surgical Oncology and General Surgery

2005 – 2006: Active, Surgical Oncology and General Surgery

2007 – American Society of Clinical Oncology Advanced Clinical Research

2007 – Conquer Cancer Foundation of ASCO and Breast Cancer Research Foundation Advanced Clinical Research Award in Breast Cancer

2006 – 2008: Associate Professor of Surgery

Faculty, General Surgery, St. Peter’s University Hospital, New Brunswick, New Jersey

Attending Surgeon, Trauma Services, Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, Illinois

2015 – Michigan State Medical License (Active through)

2015 – Ohio State Medical License (Active through)

Managing Editor of the Science-Based Medicine weblog, as well as a once-weekly contributor

SBM exists to take a skeptical, science-based view of medicine in general and in particular the infiltration of pseudoscientific practices into medicine, even in academic medical centers

These entities must have felt lucky to add a University of Michigan alum to their toolbox, a wolverine; a creature also known as a glutton or skunk bear

Who would doubt that Gorski would be a glutton for punishment when it comes to raising a big stink about breast cancer issues ?

Surely he was aware: Detroit, Michigan; the most populous city in the state of Michigan, with a population of 701,475 (2012) (9,883,360 – Michigan), 575,321 (81.4%) being African American (Black); a little less than six times the national average (82.7% – 2010 / about 83% – 2012) (Michigan – 14.2% – 2010), 369,616 Females (52.7% – 2012 / 53% – 2010) (Michigan 50.9%)

No doubt he knew that the most recent American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures, noted:
——————————————————————
• Studies have documented unequal receipt of prompt, high-quality treatment for African American women compared to white women

• African Americans more likely to be diagnosed at later stage of disease when treatment choices are more limited and less effective

• African Americans and other racial minorities are underrepresented in clinical trials, which makes it more difficult to assess efficacy of cancer therapies among different racial/ethnic groups

• African Americans have highest death rate and shortest survival of any racial and ethnic group in US for most cancers

• Life expectancy lower for African Americans than whites among women (77.2 vs. 80.9 years)

• Higher death rate in African American women compared to white women occurs despite lower cancer incidence rate

• Racial difference in overall cancer death rates is due largely to cancers of the breast and colorectum in women

• African American women have higher death rates overall and for breast and several other cancer sites

• African Americans continue to have lower 5-year survival overall:
69% – whites
60% – African Americans
and for each stage of diagnosis for most cancer sites

• Evidence aggressive tumor characteristics more common in African American than white women
——————————————————————
Gorski worked tirelessly to address the problem, by appearing on TV, radio, Internet radio, in articles and on his blogs

Soon, the locals were remarking about the “Gorski Patient Group” web-site which was set up to display anecdotal stories of breast cancer patients who were “cured” by Gorski

How has his hard work paid off ?
——————————————————————
Are these Dr. David H. Gorski’s “success stories” ?
——————————————————————
African American women breast cancer death rates per 100,000 (MICHIGAN)
—————————————————————–
34.3☝2005_-_2009 (State with 11 most) 2013-2014
33.8👇2003_-_2007 (State with 11 most) 2011-2012
34.7👇2001_-_2005 (State with 17 most) 2009-2010
35.4👇2000_-_2003 (State with 19 most) 2007-2008
36.2👇1997_-_2001 (State tied with 20 most) 2005-2006
——————————————————————
BREAST CANCER
——————————————————————
WHITE-INCIDENCE-MICHIGAN (per 100,000)
——————————————————————
118.7👇2006_-_2010 (2013-2014)
120.1👇2004_-_2008 Incidence (2011-2012)
124.3👇2002_-_2006 (2009-2010)
129.9👇2000_-_2004 (2007-2008)
133.9☝1998_-_2002 (2005-2006)
132.1☝1996_-_2000 (2003-2004)
——————————————————————
WHITE-MORTALITY-MICHIGAN (per 100,000)
——————————————————————
22.8👇2006_-_2010 (2013-2014)
23.4👇2003_-_2007 Mortality (2011-2012)
23.8👇2002_-_2006 (2009-2010)
24.6👇2000_-_2004 (2007-2008)
25.9👇1998_-_2002 (2005-2006)
27.3👇1996_-_2000 (2003-2004)
——————————————————————
AFRICAN AMERICAN-INCIDENCE-MICHIGAN (per 100,000)
——————————————————————
119.4☝2006_-_2010 (2013-2014)
119.2👇2004_-_2008 Incidence (2011_-_2012)
121.0☝2002_-_2006 (2009-2010)
119.0👇2000_-_2004 (2007-2008)
120.6👇1998_-_2002 (2005-2006)
121.4☝1996_-_2000 (2003-2004)
——————————————————————
AFRICAN AMERICAN-MORTALITY-MICHIGAN (per 100,000)
——————————————————————
34.3☝2006_-_2010 (2013-2014)
33.8👇2003_-_2007 Mortality (2011-2012)
34.6👇2002_-_2006 (2009-2010)
35.0👇2000_-_2004 (2007-2008)
36.0👇1998_-_2002 (2005-2006)
36.9👇1996_-_2000 (2003-2004)
——————————————————————
HISPANIC-INCIDENCE-MICHIGAN (per 100,000)
——————————————————————
80.1👇2006_-_2010 (2013-2014)
92.7☝2004_-_2008 Incidence (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
HISPANIC-MORTALITY-MICHIGAN (per 100,000)
——————————————————————
15.8☝2006_-_2010 (2013-2014)
14.26☝2003_-_2007 Mortality (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
INCIDENCE-MICHIGAN (per 100,000) COMBINED
——————————————————————
119.4☝2006_-_2010 AFRICAN AMERICAN (2013-2014)
118.7👇2006_-_2010 WHITE (2013-2014)
80.1👇2006_-_2010 HISPANIC (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
MORTALITY-MICHIGAN (per 100,000) COMBINED
——————————————————————
34.3☝2006_-_2010 AFRICAN AMERICAN (2013-2014)
22.8👇2006_-_2010 WHITE (2013-2014)
15.8☝2006_-_2010 HISPANIC (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
MICHIGAN – Estimated New Breast Cancer Cases:
——————————————————————
8,140☝2013 (State with 8th most)
7,710👇2012 (State with 8th most)
7,890☝2011 (State with 8th most)
7,340☝2010 (State with 8th most)
6,480☝2009 (State with 8th most)
6,120👇2008 (State with 9th most)
7,210👇2005 (State with 9th most)
7,270👇2004 (State with 9th most)
7,500☝2003 (State with 8th most)
7,300☝2002 (State with 8th most)
——————————————————————
Are these Dr. David H. Gorski’s “success stories” ?
——————————————————————
MICHIGAN – Estimated Breast Cancer Deaths:
——————————————————————
1,360☝2013 (State with 8th most)
1,350☝2012 (State with 8th most)
1,320 – 2011 (State with 9th most)
1,320👇2010 (State with 10th most)
1,350☝2009 (State with 9th most)
1,310 👇2008 (State with 9th most)
1,320 👇2007 (State with 9th most)
1,360 👇2006 (State with 9th most)
1,380☝2005 (State with 9th most)
1,350👇2004 (State with 9th most)
1,400 – 2003 (State tied with 8th most)
1,400☝2002 (State tied with 8th most)
——————————————————————
MICHIGAN – Cancer Incidence Rates
——————————————————————
120.3 – 2013 (State with 32nd most)
120.3👇2012 (State with 30th most)
122.2👇2011 (State with 24th most)
124.2👇2010 (State with 17th most)
127.0👇2009 (State with 11th most)
128.8👇2008 (State with 13th most)
129.4👇2007 (State tied with 18th most)
132.4👇2006 (State with 14th most)
133.5☝2005 (State with 13th most)
132.0☝1996_-_2000 (State with 14th most) 2004
129.8☝1995_-_1999 (State with 23rd most)(31st State’s) 2003
109.9👇1994_-_1998 Michigan – Cancer Incidence Rates (2002)
132.0☝1996_-_2000 (State with 14th most) (2004)
129.8☝1995_-_1999 (State with 23rd most) (2003)
109.9☝1994_-_1998 (State with 20th most) (2002)
——————————————————————
MICHIGAN – Cancer Death Rates:
——————————————————————
24.0👇2013 (State tied with 11th most)
24.4👇2012 (State tied with 13th most)
24.5👇2011 (State tied with 16th most)
25.1👇2010 (State tied with 12th most)
25.3👇2009 (State tied with 17th most)
25.8👇2008 (State tied with 18th most)
26.6👇2007 (State tied with 14th most)
27. 5 – 2006 (State tied with 12th most)
27.5👇2005 (State tied with 13th most)
28.4👇1996_-_2000 (State tied with 14th most) (2004)
29.5☝1995_-_1999 (State tied with 14th most) 2003
24.8☝1994_-_1998 (State with 14th most) 2002
——————————————————————
The problem, is that, when the Hippocratic Oath
was mentioned, Gorski may have opted for the Hypocrite Oath

Rather than address the BILLIONS of dollars in fines which Big Pharma racked up, and Pharma’s seeming dedication to getting members of the unwitting public, to take medications for symptoms which they were not approved for; and thus possibly experience adverse effects those drugs cause, Gorski chose to NOT comment about his goose that might lay the golden (parachute) nest egg

Instead, he tried the Tricky-Dicky trickle-down theory of Hackademic Mudicine (“Quackademic Medicine”); which did NOT work when Richard Milhous (“War on Cancer”) Nixon was told:

“There’s a cancer on the Presidency”

What Gorski seems hilariously oblivious to, is that his opprobrium; to turn a phrase, applies to him:
——————————————————————
(.3:16)
——————————————————————
When he mentions:

“ineffective and potentially harmful medical practices that were not, that are not supported by evidence”

he may as well be saying, in regards to surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation:

“ineffective and potentially harmful medical practices that were, that are supported by evidence“

(the evidence that they do NOT work for everyone)
——————————————————————
(.3:42)
——————————————————————
To use his own words, he seems:

“confused, at best”
——————————————————————
(.4:45)
——————————————————————
He also displays:

“an animosity toward reason”
——————————————————————
(.4:49)
——————————————————————
“Nothing’s changed within 30 years

If anything, it’s worse”
——————————————————————
(.6:45)
——————————————————————
He states:

“Alternative = unproved”

There goes “Alternative Rock,” or the “alternative” to an attempted Gorski joke: “happiness is a warm gun”

I’m somewhat surprised that Gorski has yet to classify antineoplastons as “Homeopathy: Ultra-diluted chemotherapy”
——————————————————————
(28:15)
——————————————————————
But he does rant that rival Cleveland Clinic where he had his residency, has been infiltrated by the Q.M.
——————————————————————
(39:10)
——————————————————————
And that his alma-mater, the University of Michigan has also queued in the “Quackademic” line
——————————————————————
(44:00)
——————————————————————
He bemoans the mighty wolverine:

“Again my alma-mater”

“I hang my head in shame”
——————————————————————
(44:10)
——————————————————————
And to add injury to insult, his “former employer,” UMDNJ (University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey)-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, has also been bitten by the Quackademic Duck

I’m sure Gorski will be able to formulate a usual factoid #fail for his #failure to “cure” cancer, vis-a-vis “Orac”, the literary Hack, braying in the wilderness and awaiting his Red Badge of Courage

Maybe “too many people copulating” in Detroit, or too many Louisiana hurricane Katrina survivors added to the sandbox

Is Gorski a racist ?

That’s up to all the African American women in Detroit, Michigan, to decide

Maybe he’s just a really bad hypocrite

NOr, maybe he needs to spend less time on the “hypocuresy,” and more time on the “CURE”

Maybe the African American women of Detroit, Michigan, and the United States of America should ask Gorski:

What have you done for me lately ?
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
“And, make no mistake about it, antineoplastons (ANPs) are chemotherapy, no matter how much Burzynski tries to claim otherwise”
——————————————————————
NO, Gorski, the United States’ 5th Circuit Court of Appeals claimed that antineoplastons (ANPs) are:

“…an unapproved drug, not ordinary “chemotherapy”

no matter how much YOU try to claim otherwise

What are you ?

A Saul Green closet communist who does NOT believe what the United States’ Federal Courts rule ?

——————————————————————

——————————————————————
“Indeed, it was a blatant ploy, as Burzynski’s lawyer, Richard Jaffe, acknowledged, referring to one of his clinical trials as a “joke” and the others as a way to make sure there was a constant supply of new cancer patients to the Burzynski Clinic“
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
” … in 1997, his medical practice was expanded to include traditional cancer treatment options such as chemotherapy, gene targeted therapy, immunotherapy and hormonal therapy in response to FDA requirements that cancer patients utilize more traditional cancer treatment options in order to be eligible to participate in the Company’s Antineoplaston clinical trials“

“As a result of the expansion of Dr. Burzynski’s medical practice, the financial condition of the medical practice has improved Dr. Burzynski’s ability to fund the Company’s operations”
——————————————————————
GorskGeek, my citations, references, and / or links, beat your NON-citations, NON-references, and / or NON-links
======================================
AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY:
CANCER FACTS & FIGURES (2002-2014)
======================================
2002_-_2003 – 1 of every 4 deaths
======================================
Deaths – United States of America
——————————————————————
2013 – almost 1,600 a day
2002-2012☝1,500+ a day
——————————————————————
Expected to Die – United States
——————————————————————
2013☝580,350_-_(3,160 more than 2012)
2012☝577,190_-_(5,240 more than 2011)
2011☝571,950_-_(2,460 more than 2010)
2010☝569,490_-_(7,150 more than 2009)
2009👇562,340_-_(3,310 less than 2008)
2008☝565,650_-_(6,000 more than 2007)
2007👇559,650_-_(5,180 less than 2006)
2006👇564,830_-_(5,450 less than 2005)
2005☝570,280_-_(6,580 more than 2004
2004☝563,700_-_(7,200 more than 2003)
2003☝556,500_-_(6,000 more than 2002)
2002☝555,500
——————————————————————
Estimated All Cancer Deaths (Women)
——————————————————————
2013👇273,430 (1,940 less than 2012)
2012☝275,370 (3,850 more than 2011)
2011☝271,520 (1,230 more than 2010)
2010☝270,290 (490 more than 2009)
2009👇269,800 (1,730 less than 2008)
2008☝271,530 (1,430 more than 2007)
2007👇270,100 (3,460 less than 2006)
2006👇273,560 (1,440 less than 2005)
2005☝275,000 (2,190 more than 2004)
2004☝272,810 (2,210 more than 2003)
2003☝270,600 (3,300 more than 2002)
2002_-_267,300
——————————————————————
Estimated cancer deaths – African Americans expected to die from cancer:
——————————————————————
2013👇64,645 – 22.6% (2013-2014)
2011☝65,540 (About) (2011-2012)
2009☝63,360 (About) (2009-2010)
2007☝62,780 (About) (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
Estimated Breast Cancer Deaths (Women)
——————————————————————
2013☝39,620 (14%) (110 more than 2012)
2012👇39,510 (14%) (10 less than 2011)
2011👇39,520 (15%) (320 less than 2010)
2010👇39,840 (15%) (330 less than 2009)
2009👇40,170 (15%) (310 less than 2008)
2008☝40,480 (15%) (20 more than 2007)
2007👇40,460 (15%) (2007-2008) (510 less than 2006)
2006☝40,970 (15%) (560 more than 2005)
2005☝40,410 (15%) (300 more than 2004)
2004☝40,110 (15%) (310 more than 2003)
2003☝39,800 (15%) (200 more than 2002)
2002 – 39,600 (15%)
——————————————————————
Estimated Deaths from Breast cancer expected to occur among African American women:
——————————————————————
6,080☝2013 – 19% (2013-2014)
6,040☝2011 – 19% (2011-2012)
6,020☝2009 – 19% (2009-2010)
5,830☝2007 – 19% (2007-2008)
5,640☝(2005-2006)
5,640 – 1969-2002 – 18.4% – 2005 (2005-2006)
======================================
New Cancer Cases Expected to be diagnosed – USA
——————————————————————
2013☝1,660,290 – (21,380 more than 2012)
2012☝1,638,910 – (42,240 more than 2011)
2011☝1,596,670 – (67,160 more than 2010)
2010☝1,529,560 – (49,810 more than 2009)
2009☝1,479,350 – (42,170 more than 2008)
2008👇1,437,180 – ( 7,740 less than 2007)
2007☝1,444,920 – (45,130 more than 2006)
2006☝1,399,790 – (26,880 more than 2005)
2005☝1,372,910 – ( 4,870 more than 2004)
2004☝1,368,030 – (33,930 more than 2003)
2003☝1,334,100 – (49,200 more than 2002)
2002☝1,284,900
——————————————————————
Estimated New Cancer All (Women)
——————————————————————
2013☝805,500 – (14,760 more than 2012)
2012☝790,740 – (16,370 more than 2011)
2011☝774,370 – (34,430 more than 2010)
2010☝739,940 – (26,720 more than 2009)
2009☝713,220 – (21,220 more than 2008)
2008☝692,000 – (13,940 more than 2007)
2007👇678,060 – (1,450 less than 2006)
2006☝679,510 – (16,640 more than 2005)
2005👇662,870 – (5,600 less than 2004)
2004☝668,470 – (9,670 more than 2003)
2003☝658,800 – (11,400 more than 2002)
2002_-_647,400
——————————————————————
Estimated New invasive Breast Cancer Cases: (Women)
——————————————————————
2013☝232,340 (29%) (5,470 more than 2012)
2012👇226,870 (29%) (11,610 less than 2011)
2011☝238,480 (30%) (31,390 more than 2010)
2010☝207,090 (28%) (14,720 more than 2009)
2009☝192,370 (27%) (9,910 more than 2008)
2008☝182,460 (26%) (3,980 more than 2007)
2007👇178,480 (26%) (2007-2008) (34,440 less than 2006)
2006☝212,920 (31%) (1,680 more than 2005)
2005👇211,240 (32%) (4,660 less than 2004)
2004☝215,900 (32%) (4,600 more than 2003)
2003☝211,300 (32%) (7,800 more than 2002)
2002_-_203,500 (31%)
——————————————————————
Estimated new cases – new cancer cases expected to be diagnosed among African Americans:
——————————————————————
2013☝176,620 (2013-2014)
2011☝168,900 (About) (2011-2012)
2009👇150,090 (About) (2009-2010)
2008☝182,460 (26%)
2007_-_152,900 (About) (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
Estimated new cases of in situ breast cancer expected to occur:
——————————————————————
64,640☝(2013) (1,340 more than 2012)
63,300☝(2012) (5,650 more than 2011)
57,650☝(2011) (3,640 more than 2010)
54,010👇(2010) (8,270 less than 2009)
62,280👇(2009) (5,490 less than 2008)
67,770☝(2008) (5,740 more than 2007-2008)
62,030☝(2007-2008) (50 more than 2006)
61,980☝(2006) (3,490 more than 2005-2006)
58,490👇(2005-2006) (900 less than 2004)
59,390☝(2004) (3,690 more than 2003)
55,700☝(2003) (1,400 more than 2002)
54,300☝(2002)
——————————————————————
Estimated New Cancer Cases – African Americans – Breast
——————————————————————
2013☝27,060 – 33% (2013-2014)
2011☝26,840 – 34% (2011-2012)
2009☝19,540 – 25% (2009-2010)
2007☝19,010 – 27% (2007-2008)
19,240 – 1979-2001 – 29.9% – 2005 (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Estimated new cases of in situ breast cancer expected to occur = detection of below # of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS):
——————————————————————
54,944 (2013)
85% (2003-2012)
88% (2002)

1998-2002 accounted for about 85% of in situ breast cancers diagnosed (2005-2006)
1980-2001 – Incidence rates of DCIS increased more than sevenfold in all age groups, although greatest in women 50 and older (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH
——————————————————————
2013 – breast cancer expected to be most commonly diagnosed cancer in women
——————————————————————
BREAST CANCER – 2nd
——————————————————————
2013 – Breast cancer 2nd most common cause of cancer death among African American women, surpassed only by lung cancer (2009-2012)
(2007)
——————————————————————
2003 – Breast cancer is 2nd among cancer deaths in women

2002-2003: 2nd leading cause of death

2002 – Breast cancer 2nd leading cause of death
————————————-
Breast cancer most common cancer among African American women

34% – (2011-2012)
25% – (2009-2010)
2007
——————————————————————
2011 – New Cases
(2011-2012)

New Cases: Breast cancer most commonly diagnosed cancer among African American women
——————————————————————
BREAST CANCER – AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN
——————————————————————
34% – African American women most common cancer (2011-2012)

African American Women Most common cancer (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2005 – African American women – more likely to die from at any age
——————————————————————
ESTIMATED WOMEN BREAST CANCER DEATHS
——————————————————————
19% – number of cancer deaths breast cancer in women (2007-2012)
——————————————————————
since 1990 – Death rates from breast cancer steadily decreased in women (2009-2010)

since 1990 – death rate from breast cancer in women decreased (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
1.9% – 2000-2009 cancer mortality rate for women of all races combined declined annually (2012-2013)
——————————————————————
1990-2006 – death rate from breast cancer in women decreased (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2.2% – 1990-2004 cancer mortality rate for women of all races combined decreased annually (2007-2008)

decline larger among younger age groups (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
2.3% – 1990-2002 rate decreased annually – percentage of decline larger among younger age groups (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2.3% – 1990-2000 breast cancer death rates decreased annually (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1992-1998 – mortality rates declined significantly

largest decreases in younger women, both white and black (2002)
——————————————————————
1.6% – 1975-1991 – Breast Cancer Death Rates Increased annually (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
0.4% – 1975-1990 – breast cancer death rates increased annually (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
0.4% – 1975-1990 death rate for all races combined increased annually (2005-2008)
——————————————————————
rate for women of all races combined decreased annually (2007-2008)

decline larger among younger age groups (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
BREAST CANCER – OLDER WOMEN
——————————————————————
Older women much more likely to get breast cancer than younger women
——————————————————————
% FEMALE BREAST CANCER DEATH RATES (age)
——————————————————————
97% – 1998-2002 – age 40 and older (2005-2008)
96% – 1996-2000 – age 40 and older (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
WOMEN YOUNGER than 50
——————————————————————
3.0% – under age of 50 – Mortality from breast cancer declined faster for women (annually from 2005-2009) regardless of race/ethnicity (2013)
——————————————————————
2.3% – 1990-2001 Breast Cancer Death Rates decrease

largest decrease in < 50 (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
3.7% – 1991-2000 under 50 breast cancer Death rates decreased (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
3.3% – 1990-2004 – death rates decreased per year among women younger than 50 (2005c-2008)
——————————————————————
2.3% – 1990-2002 Death rates from breast cancer declined average per year in all women combined, with larger decreases in younger (<50 years) women (2006)
——————————————————————
WOMEN 50 and older
——————————————————————
1.2% – 50 and older – decrease in breast cancer death rates smaller in African American than white women (2009-2010)
——————————————————————
2.0% – 50 and older – 1990-2004 – death rates decreased per year among women (2005-2008)
——————————————————————
WHITE WOMEN
——————————————————————
2.1% – 2000-2009 – breast cancer death rates declined per year in white women
——————————————————————
2.6% – 1992-2000 – breast cancer Death rates Whites (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2.4% – 1990-2004 female breast cancer death rates declined per year in whites (2005-2008)
——————————————————————
early 1980’s – Breast Cancer Death Rates equal – African American / White (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN – ALL CANCERS
——————————————————————
1.5% – since 1999 – Death rates among women (African Americans for all cancers combined) per year have been decreasing (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN BREAST CANCER DEATHS
——————————————————————
black women more likely to die of breast cancer than white women (2012-2013)
——————————————————————
2005-2006 African American women more likely to die from breast cancer at every age
——————————————————————
41% – 2005-2009 African American women had higher death rate than white women despite lower incidence rate

39% – 2003-2007 – African American women had higher death rate than white women, despite lower incidence rate (2011-2012)

difference accounts for more than one-third (37%) of overall cancer mortality disparity between African American and white women (2011-2012)

37% – 2001-2005 – African American women had higher death rate than white women (2009-2010)

higher breast cancer mortality rate among African American women compared to white women occurs despite lower incidence rate (2009-2010)

difference accounts for more than one-third (37%) of overall cancer mortality disparity between African American and white women (2009-2010)

higher breast cancer mortality rate among African American women compared to white women occurs despite lower incidence rate (2007)

notable, striking divergence in long-term breast cancer mortality rates trends between African American and white women (2005-2008)

36% – by 2004 – death rates higher in African Americans than white women (2007-2008)
37% – by 2002 – death rates higher in African American women than white women (2005-2006)
36% – 2000-2003 – death rates higher in African American women than white women (2007)

difference accounts for one-third of excess cancer mortality experienced by African American women compared to white women (2007)

32% – 2000 – Breast Cancer Death rate higher in African American women even though had lower incidence rates (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN – 50 and older
——————————————————————
1.2% – 50 and older – 1992-2012 – per year – women (2011-2012)

2.0% – 50 and older – Breast Cancer Death Rates – per year (2009-2010)
——————————————————————
1.2% – 50 and older – decrease in breast cancer death rates smaller in African American than white women (2009-2010)

1.1% – 50 and older – 1991-2007 – African American women Breast cancer death rates declined annually (2007)

2.0% – 50 and older – 1990-2000 – breast cancer Death rates decreased (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1990 – 50 and older – Breast Cancer Death Rates Increase predominantly due to
——————————————————————
AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN – under 50
——————————————————————
2.0% – 1992-2012 – decrease larger in women under 50 – declined thereafter per year (2011-2012)

1.9% – 1992-2009 – decrease larger in women under 50 – declined thereafter per year (2009-2010)

resulted in growing disparity

3.3% per year – larger decreases in women younger than 50 – Breast Cancer Death Rates (2009-2010)
——————————————————————
1.9% – 1991_-_2007 – decrease larger in women under 50 – African American women Breast cancer death rates declined annually per year
——————————————————————
AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN
——————————————————————
2000-2009 – death among females, rate of decline similar

As result, overall racial disparity narrowed
——————————————————————
2000-2009 death rate declined faster among African Americans females rate of decline than whites

1.5% – 2000-2009 African Americans females rate of decline per year (2013-2014)

1.4% – 2000-2009 whites rate of decline per year (2013-2014 )
——————————————————————
1.4% – 2000-2009 – breast cancer death rates declined more slowly per year in African American women
——————————————————————
1990-2002
African American women benefited less than white women from advances (2005-2008)
——————————————————————
1.1% – breast cancer death rates African Americans (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1.6% – 1995-2004 – female breast cancer death rates declined per year in African Americans (2007-2008)

1.0% – 1990-2002 female breast cancer death rates declined per year – African Americans (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
early 1990s – Death rates among African Americans for all cancers combined have been decreasing (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
breast cancer death rates have declined more slowly in African American women compared to white women, which has resulted in growing disparity (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
gap much smaller among women
racial difference in overall cancer death rates due largely to cancers of breast and colorectum in women

racial disparity has widened for breast cancer in women (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
early 1980s – disparity in breast cancer death rates between African American and white women began in (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
early 1980s – breast cancer death rates for white and African American women approximately equal (2007)
——————————————————————
30% – early 1980’s-2000 – disparity between African American and white Deaths (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
early 1980s – disparity in breast cancer death rates between African American and white women appeared (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
early 1980s – breast cancer death rates for white and African American women

similar (2011-2014)

equal (2009-2010)

early 1980’s – Breast Cancer Death Rates equal – African American / White (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1.5% – 1975-1992 – Breast cancer death rates among African American women increased annually (2009-2012)

1.6% – 1975-1991 – African American women Breast cancer death rates increased annually (2007)
——————————————————————
1975-2007 – death rates for all cancers combined continued to be substantially higher among African Americans than whites (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN BREAST CANCER DEATH RATE RATIOS per 100,000 women
——————————————————————
35.4 – African American – 1997-2001 – Breast Cancer Death Rate Ratios per 100,000 (2005-2006)

26.4 – White – 1997-2001 – Breast Cancer Death Rate Ratios per 100,000 (2005-2006)

1.3 – African American / White Ratio – 1997-2001 – Breast Cancer Death Rate Ratios per 100,000 (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
HISPANIC / LATINA WOMEN
——————————————————————
2.4% – 1995-2004 female breast cancer death rates declined per year in Hispanics / Latinas (2007-2008)
1.8% – 1990-2002 female breast cancer death rates declined per year in Hispanics / Latinas (2005-2006)
1.4% – breast cancer Death rates Hispanics (2005-2006)

1990-2002
women of other racial and ethnic groups benefited less than white women from advances (2005-2008)
——————————————————————
ASIAN AMERICAN / PACIFIC ISLANDER WOMEN
——————————————————————
1995-2004 female breast cancer death rates remained unchanged among Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders (2007-2008)

1.1% – breast cancer Death rates Asian and Pacific Islanders (2005-2006)

1.0% – 1990-2002 female breast cancer death rates declined per year – Asian Americans / Pacific Islanders (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1990-2002
women of other racial and ethnic groups benefited less than white women from advances (2005-2008)
——————————————————————
AMERICAN INDIAN / ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN
——————————————————————
1995-2004 female breast cancer death rates remained unchanged among American Indians / Alaska Natives (2007-2008)

1990-2002 female breast cancer death rates did not decline in American Indian / Alaska Natives (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1990-2002
women of other racial and ethnic groups benefited less than white women from advances (2005-2008)
——————————————————————
breast cancer Death rates American Indian and Alaska Native – constant (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
DEATHS – 2007-2008
——————————————————————
40,460 – Deaths – All ages (2007-2008)
23,510 – Deaths – 65 and older (2007-2008)
16,950 – Deaths – Younger than 65 (2007-2008)
31,320 – Deaths – 55 and older (2007-2008)
9,140 – Deaths – Younger than 55 (2007-2008)
37,630 – Deaths – 45 and older (2007-2008)
2,830 – Deaths – Younger than 45 (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
MORTALITY (DEATH) RATES
——————————————————————
31.0 – Black – Mortality – 1992-1998 – Mortality Rates* by Site, Race, and Ethnicity (2002)

24.3 – White – Mortality – 1992-1998 – Mortality Rates* by Site, Race, and Ethnicity (2002)

14.8 – Hispanic – Mortality – 1992-1998 – Mortality Rates* by Site, Race, and Ethnicity (2002)

12.4 – American Indian / Alaskan Native – Mortality – 1992-1998 – Mortality Rates* by Site, Race, and Ethnicity (2002)

11.0 – Asian / Pacific Islander – Mortality – 1992-1998 – Mortality Rates* by Site, Race, and Ethnicity (2002)
——————————————————————
WHITE WOMEN – MORE LIKELY TO DEVELOP BREAST CANCER
——————————————————————
Combining all age groups, white (non-Hispanic) women more likely to develop breast cancer than black women
——————————————————————
PROBABILITY of DEVELOPING BREAST CANCER in NEXT 10 YEARS (Age)
——————————————————————
20
——————————————————————
20 – 0.05% – 1 in 2,152 – Probability of developing Breast Cancer in next 10 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
20 – 0.05% – 1 in 1,985 – 2000-2002 probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years: † (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
20 – 0.05% – 1 in: 1,837 – probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
30
——————————————————————
30 – 0.44% – 1 in: 229 (2000-2002) probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years: † (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
30 – 0.43% – 1 in: 234 – probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
30 – 0.40% – 1 in 251 – Probability of developing Breast Cancer in next 10 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
40
——————————————————————
40 – 1.46% – 1 in: 68 (2000-2002) probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years: † (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
40 – 1.45% – 1 in 69 – Probability of developing Breast Cancer in next 10 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
40 – 1.43% – 1 in: 70 – probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
50
——————————————————————
50 – 2.78% – 1 in 36 – Probability of developing Breast Cancer in next 10 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
50 – 2.73% – 1 in: 37 (2000-2002) probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years: † (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
50 – 2.51% – 1 in: 40 – probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
60
——————————————————————
60 – 3.82% – 1 in: 26 (2000-2002) probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years: † (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
60 – 3.81% – 1 in 26 – Probability of developing Breast Cancer in next 10 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
60 – 3.51% – 1 in: 28 – probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
70
——————————————————————
70 – 4.31% – 1 in 23 – Probability of developing Breast Cancer in next 10 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
70 – 4.14% – 1 in: 24 (2000-2002) probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years: † (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
70 – 3.88% – 1 in: 26 – probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
LIFETIME RISK
——————————————————————
13.2% – 1 in 8 – 2005-2006 Currently, woman living in US has, or, lifetime risk of developing breast cancer
——————————————————————
13.22% – Lifetime risk – 1 in: 8 – 2000-2002 probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years: † (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
12.28% – Lifetime risk – 1 in: 8 – probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
AFRICAN AMERICAN LIFE EXPECTANCY
——————————————————————
2007 – life expectancy lower for African Americans than whites among women

(76.5 vs. 80.6 years) (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
DEVELOPING INVASIVE BREAST CANCER
——————————————————————
1 in 8 – 2013 – chance of developing invasive breast cancer during lifetime
——————————————————————
1 in 8 – 12.3% – Currently, woman living in US has lifetime risk of developing breast cancer (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
about 1 in 11 – 1975
——————————————————————
1 in 11 – 1970s – lifetime risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
result of rounding to nearest whole number, small decrease in lifetime risk (from 1 in 7.47 to 1 in 7.56) led to change in lifetime risk from 1 in 7 previously reported in Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2003-2004 and Cancer Facts & Figures 2005 to current estimate of 1 in 8

Overall, lifetime risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer gradually increased over past 3 decades (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
INVASIVE BREAST CANCER – by age (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
178,480 – All ages
72,520 – 65 and older
105,960 – Younger than 65
124,300 – 55 and older
54,180 – Younger than 55
162,330 – 45 and older
16,150 – Younger than 45
——————————————————————
INVASIVE BREAST CANCER – by # (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
178,480 – All ages
162,330 – 45 and older
124,300 – 55 and older
105,960 – Younger than 65
72,520 – 65 and older
54,180 – Younger than 55
16,150 – Younger than 45
——————————————————————
INVASIVE BREAST CANCER
——————————————————————
0.3% – 1987-2002 – Incidence Trends: increased per year (2005-2006)
————————————-
—————————–
4% (almost) – 1980-1987 – increased (almost +4% a year) Incidence Trends (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
age 40-49
——————————————————————
Since 1987 – age 40-49 – incidence rates of invasive breast cancer have slightly declined (2005-2006)

3.5% – 40-49 (age) – 1980-1987 – incidence rates of invasive breast cancer increased among women per year – Incidence Trends: Invasive Breast Cancer (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
age 50 and older
——————————————————————
Since 1987 – 50 and older – incidence rates of invasive breast cancer have continued to increase among women, though at much slower rate (2005-2006)

4.2% – 50 and older – incidence rates of invasive breast cancer increased among women per year – Incidence Trends: Invasive Breast Cancer (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Under 40
——————————————————————
Under 40 – remained essentially constant (2005-2006)

Since 1987 – younger than 40 – relatively little change in incidence rates of invasive breast cancer in women (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Invasive Breast Cancer
——————————————————————
1975-2000 – Invasive Breast Cancer (2005-2006):

4% – 40 and older – increased 1980-1987 then stabilized (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1992-2002 – overall incidence rates did not change significantly among whites, African Americans, and Hispanics / Latinas (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1.3% – Hispanics – increased overall (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
0.9% – Whites – increased overall (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
African Americans – stabilized (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Asian Americans / Pacific Islanders
——————————————————————
2.1% – 1992-2002 – Asian and Pacific Islanders – overall incidence rates increased overall (2005-2006)

1.5% – 1992-2002 – Asian Americans / Pacific Islanders – overall incidence rates increased per year (2005-2006)

trends in invasive female breast cancer incidence rates (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
American Indian / Alaska Natives
——————————————————————
3.7% – American Indian / Alaska Native – decreased overall (2005-2006)

3.5% – 1992-2002 – American Indian / Alaska Natives – overall incidence rates decreased per year (2005-2006)

trends in invasive female breast cancer incidence rates (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
essentially constant – Incidence Trends
——————————————————————
1973-1980 – essentially constant – Incidence Trends (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
African Americans more likely to be diagnosed at later stage of disease when treatment choices are more limited and less effective (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
MEDIAN AGE of DIAGNOSIS
——————————————————————
62 – median age of diagnosis for -white women
——————————————————————
57 – median age of diagnosis for African American women
——————————————————————
DIAGNOSIS at LOCAL STAGE
——————————————————————
61% – breast cancers diagnosed among white women at local stage (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
51% (Only about half) – of breast cancers diagnosed among African American women are local stage (2011-2014)
——————————————————————
MEDIAN AGE AT TIME OF BREAST CANCER DIAGNOSIS
——————————————————————
61 – 2000_-_2004 median age at time of breast cancer diagnosis (2007-2008)
61 – 1998_-_2002 median age at time of breast cancer diagnosis
——————————————————————
61 – means 50% of women who developed breast cancer were 61 or younger (2007-2008)
50% of women who developed breast cancer were age 61 or younger 1998_-_2002
——————————————————————
61 – 50% were older than 61 when diagnosed (2007-2008)

50% were older than age 61 when diagnosed 1998_-_2002
——————————————————————
2005_-_2009 % / age DIAGNOSED with BREAST CANCER
——————————————————————
61 – median age for breast cancer diagnosis

0.0% – under age 20
1.8% – between 20-34
9.9% – between 35-44
22.5% – between 45-54
24.8% – between 55-64
20.2% – between 65-74
15.1% – between 75-84
5.7% – 85+
——————————————————————
2005_-_2009 % / age DIAGNOSED with BREAST CANCER by % (SEER, 2012)
——————————————————————
24.8% – between 55-64
22.5% – between 45-54
20.2% – between 65-74
15.1% – between 75-84
9.9% – between 35-44
5.7% – 85+
1.8% – between 20-34
0.0% – under age 20
——————————————————————
IN SITU BREAST CANCER – by age (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
62,030 – All ages
21,510 – 65 and older
40,520 – Younger than 65
37,110 – 55 and older
24,920 – Younger than 55
54,390 – 45 and older
7,640 – Younger than 45
——————————————————————
IN SITU BREAST CANCER – by # (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
62,030 – All ages
54,390 – 45 and older
40,520 – Younger than 65
37,110 – 55 and older
24,920 – Younger than 55
21,510 – 65 and older
7,640 – Younger than 45
——————————————————————
NEW CASES – IN SITU BREAST CANCER
——————————————————————
increase observed in all age groups, although greatest in women 50 and older (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
Since 2000 – incidence rates of in situ breast cancer leveled off among women 50 and older (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
Since 2000 – incidence rates of in situ breast cancer have continued to increase in younger women (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
80% – 2000-2004 – Most in situ breast cancers are ductal carcinoma (DCIS), which accounted for about 80% of in situ breast cancers diagnosed (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
2000-2004 – Lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) less common than DCIS, accounting for about 10% of female in situ breast cancers diagnosed (2007-2008)

Similar to DCIS, overall incidence rate of LCIS increased more rapidly than incidence of invasive breast cancer (2007-2008)

increase limited to women older than age 40 and largely to postmenopausal women (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
1998-2002 accounting for female in situ breast cancers diagnosed (2005-2006):

12% – Lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) less common than DCIS

Similar to DCIS, overall incidence rate of LCIS increased more rapidly than incidence of invasive breast cancer

increase limited to women older than 40 and largely to postmenopausal women
——————————————————————
1980s and 1990s – Incidence rates of in situ breast cancer increased rapidly (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
New cancer cases in women expected to be newly diagnosed among African Americans:
——————————————————————
2013 – 82,080 (About)
——————————————————————
19% – breast cancer in women (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
2002 – Breast cancer ranks 2nd among cancer deaths in women
——————————————————————
2002-2003: 2nd leading cause of death
——————————————————————
African American women expected to die from cancer:
——————————————————————
African Americans have the highest death rate and shortest survival of any racial and ethnic group in the US for most cancers
(2007-2014)
African Americans have the highest mortality rate of any racial and ethnic group in the US for most cancers
(2005-2006)
——————————————————————
higher death rate in African
American women compared to white women occurs despite lower cancer incidence rate (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
African American women have higher death rates overall and for breast and several other cancer sites (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
15% – 2009 – death rate for all cancers combined continued to be higher in African American women than in white women (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
racial difference in overall cancer death rates is due largely to cancers of the breast and colorectum in women (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
overall racial disparity in cancer death rates decreasing (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
16% – 2007 – death rate for all cancers combined higher in African American women than white women (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
37% – by 2002 – death rates higher in African Americans than white women (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
since early 1990s – death rates among African Americans for all cancers combined have been decreasing (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
30% – early 1980’s–2000 – Deaths disparity between African American and white (2005–2006)
——————————————————————
1975-2009 – Despite declines, death rates for all cancers combined continued to be higher among African Americans than whites (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
1992-2014 – Breast cancer death rates among African American women declined
——————————————————————
1.4% per year – 2000-2009 – breast cancer death rates declined more slowly in African American women
——————————————————————
2.1% per year – 2000-2009 – breast cancer death rates declined white women
——————————————————————
early 1980s – breast cancer death rates for white and African American women similar
——————————————————————
1975-1992 – Breast cancer death rates among African American women increased
resulted in growing disparity
——————————————————————
through 1998 – breast cancer incidence rates among young white women continued to increase more slowly (2002)
——————————————————————
1980s – 4.5% per year increase (2002)
——————————————————————
As result, overall racial disparity narrowed (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
1992-1998 – mortality rates declined significantly – largest decreases in younger women, both white and black (2002)
——————————————————————
1992-1998 – Incidence and Mortality Rates* by Site, Race, and Ethnicity (2002)
——————————————————————
Incidence
——————————————————————
115.5 – White
101.5 – Black
78.1 – Asian / Pacific Islander
50.5 – American Indian / Alaskan Native
68.5 – Hispanic
——————————————————————
Mortality
——————————————————————
31.0 – Black
24.3 – White
14.8 – Hispanic
12.4 – American Indian / Alaskan Native
11.0 – Asian / Pacific Islander
——————————————————————
Cancer Facts & Figures for African Americans 2005-2006
——————————————————————
1995-2000 (2001) – Diagnosed
Female breast (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
Localized
——————————————————————
64% – White (2005-2006)
53% – African American (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Regional
——————————————————————
35% – African American (2005-2006)
28% – White (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Distant
——————————————————————
9% – African American (2005-2006)
5% – White (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Unstaged
——————————————————————
3% – African American (2005-2006)
2% – White (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2005-2006 – Cancer Incidence Rates Ratios per 100,000 (1975-2001)
——————————————————————
1997-2001 – Breast (2005-2006)
143.2 – White (2005-2006)
118.6 – African American (2005-2006)
0.8 – African American / White Ratio (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2005-2006 – Cancer Death Rate Ratios per 100,000
——————————————————————
1997-2001 – Breast (2005-2006)
35.4 – African American (2005-2006)
26.4 – White (2005-2006)
1.3 – African American / White Ratio (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Most common cancer among African American Women (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
17% lower incidence rate in African American than White (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
under 40 – higher incidence rate in African American than White (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
25 years incidence:
——————————————————————
1999-2001 – leveling off (2005-2006)
1986-1999 – less rapid increase (2005-2006)
1978-1986 – rapid increase (2005-2006)
1975-1978 – stable (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Breast Cancer Death Rates Increased (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
1975-1991 – + 1.6% – annually (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1991 – decided annually: particularly in women younger than 50 (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Breast Cancer Death Rates (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
early 1980’s – equal – African American / White (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2000 – 32% – higher African American (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Death rate higher in African American even though had lower incidence rates (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Rate per 100,000
——————————————————————
White
African American
Asian or Pacific Islander
Hispanic
American Indian or Alaska Native
——————————————————————
1996-2000 – Incidences:

140.8 – White
121.7 – African American
97.2 – Asian or Pacific Islander
89.8 – Hispanic
58 – American Indian or Alaska Native
——————————————————————
1996-2000 – Deaths

35.9 – African American
27.2 – White
17.9 – Hispanic
14.9 – American Indian or Alaska Native
12.5 – Asian or Pacific Islander
——————————————————————
Estimated New In Situ Cases:
——————————————————————
2003_-_100 – < 30
2005 – 1,600 – Under 40
2003 – 2,100 – 30-39
2005 – 56,890 – 40 and older
2005 – 13,760 – Under 50
2003 -12,600 – 40-49
2005 – 44,730 – 50 and older
2005 – 37,040 – Under 65
2003 – 15,700 – 50-59
2005 – 21,450 – 65 and older
2003 – 11,500 – 60-69
2003 – 10,100 – 70-79
2003 – 3,500 – 80 +
2005 – 58,490 – All ages
TOTAL
2003 – 55,700
——————————————————————
2003_-_100 – 0.2%
2003 – 2,100 – 3.8%
2003 – 12,600 – 22.6%
2003 – 15,700 – 28.2%
2003 – 11,500 – 20.6%
2003 – 10,100 – 18.1%
2003 – 3,500 – 16.3
TOTAL
2003 – 100.0%
——————————————————————
Estimated New Invasive Cases:
——————————————————————
2003 – 1,000 – < 30
2005 – 9,510 – Under 40
2003 – 10,500 – 30-39
2005_-_201,730 – 40 and older
2005 – 45,780 – Under 50
2003 – 35,500 – 40-49
2005_-_165,460 – 50 and older
2005_-_123,070 – Under 65
2003 – 48,700 – 50-59
2005 – 88,170 – 65 and older
2003 – 43,100 – 60-69
2003 – 45,600 – 70-79
2003 – 27,000 – 80 +
2005_-_211,240 – All ages
TOTAL
2003 – 55,700 –
——————————————————————
2003 – 1,000 – 0.5%
2003 – 10,500 – 5.0%
2003 – 35,500 – 16.8%
2003 – 48,700 – 23.0%
2003 – 43,100 – 20.4%
2003 – 45,600 – 21.6%
2003 – 27,000 – 12.8%
TOTAL
2003 – 100.00%
——————————————————————
Deaths:
——————————————————————
2003_-_100 – < 30
2005 – 1,110 – Under 40
2003 – 1,300 – 30-39
2005 – 39,300 – 40 and older
2005 – 5,590 – Under 50
2003 – 4,300 – 40-49
2005 – 34,820 – 50 and older
2005 – 17,470 – Under 65
2003 – 7,000 – 50-59
2005 – 22,940 – 65 and older
2003 – 7,400 – 60-69
2003 – 9,500 – 70-79
2003 – 10,100 – 80 +
2005 – 40,410 – All ages
TOTAL
2003 – 39,800
——————————————————————
2003_-_100 – 0.3%
2003 – 1,300 – 3.3%
2003 – 4,300 – 10.8%
2003 – 7,000 – 17.6 %
2003 – 7,400 – 18.6%
2003 – 9,500 – 23.9%
2003 – 10,100 – 25.4%
TOTAL
2003 – 100.0
——————————————————————
1990 – Increase since predominantly due to women 50 and older
——————————————————————
1998-2002 accounting for female in situ breast cancers diagnosed (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
12% – Lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) less common than DCIS

Similar to DCIS, overall incidence rate of LCIS increased more rapidly than incidence of invasive breast cancer

increase limited to women older than 40 and largely to postmenopausal women
——————————————————————
1990-2001 (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
2.3% – decrease
largest decrease in < 50
——————————————————————
1998-2002 women aged 40 and older (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
95% – new cases
97% – breast cancer deaths
——————————————————————
1996-2000 Women 40 and older (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
94% – New Cases
96% – Deaths
——————————————————————
0.3% per year – Incidence rates declined slightly among white females (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
1996-2002 (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
20-24 – 1.3 per 100,000 lowest incidence rate – 1998-2002 (2005-2006)

20-24 – 1.4 per 100,000 lowest incidence rate – 1996-2000 (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
75-79 – 496.6 per 100,000 highest incidence rate – 1998-2002 (2005-2006)

75-79 – 499.0 per 100,000 highest incidence rate – 1996-2000 (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2005-2006
•
White women higher incidence of breast cancer than African American women after 35

African American women slightly higher incidence rate before 35

African American women more likely to die from breast cancer at every age
——————————————————————
2005

White – higher incidence rate than African American women after 40

African American – slightly higher incidence rate before 40

African American women – more likely to die from at any age
——————————————————————
2005-2006 incidence and death rates from breast cancer lower among women of other racial and ethnic groups than white and African American women
——————————————————————
2000-2009 – stable among African American females (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
1975-1980 essentially constant (2005-2006)
1980-1987 + almost 4% per year (2005-2006)
1987-2002 + 0.3% per year (2005-2006)
•
Incidence Trends
Invasive Breast Cancer (2005-2006):

1973-1980 – essentially constant (2005-2006)
1980-1987 – + almost 4% year (2005-2006)
1987-2000 – 0.4% year (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1980-1987 incidence rates of invasive breast cancer increased among women (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
40-49 (3.5% per year) (2005-2006)
50 and older (4.2% per year) (2005-2006)
Since 1987
50 and older – rates have continued to increase among women , though at much slower rate (2005-2006)

40-49 -rates have slightly declined (2005-2006)

younger than 40 – relatively little change in incidence rates of invasive breast cancer in women (2005-2006)

1975-2000 – Invasive Breast Cancer (2005-2006):

4% – 40 and older increased 1980 – 1987 then stabilized (2005-2006)

Under 40 – remained essentially constant (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2005-2006 trends in invasive female breast cancer incidence rates:
——————————————————————
1992-2002
(1.5% per year) – overall incidence rates increased in Asian Americans / Pacific Islanders (2005-2006)

(3.5% per year) – decreased in American Indian/Alaska Natives (2005-2006)

did not change significantly among whites, African Americans, and Hispanics/Latinas (2005-2006)

1992-2000 – Invasive (2005-2006):

2.1% – Asian and Pacific Islanders – increased overall (2005-2006)
1.3% – Hispanics – increased overall (2005-2006)
0.9% – Whites – increased overall (2005-2006)
3.7% – American Indian and Alaska Native – decreased overall (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
African Americans – stabilized (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
since 1990 – death rate from breast cancer in women decreased (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1975-1990
0.4% – death rate for all races combined increased annually (2005-2006)
•
1990-2002
2.3% – rate decreased annually
percentage of decline larger among younger age groups (2005-2006)

1990-2002
3.3% – death rates decreased per year among women younger than 50 (2005-2006)

2.0% – per year among women 50 and older (2005-2006)

African American women and women of other racial and ethnic groups have benefited less than white women from advances (2005-2006)

1990-2002 female breast cancer death rates declined (2005-2006):

2.4% – per year – whites (2005-2006)
1.8% – per year – Hispanics/Latinas (2005-2006)
1.0% – per year – African Americans and Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders (2005-2006)

did not decline in American Indian/ Alaska Natives (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
life expectancy lower for African Americans than whites among women (77.2 vs. 80.9 years) (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
As result, overall racial disparity narrowed (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
striking divergence in long-term mortality trends between African American and white females (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
early 1980s – disparity in breast cancer death rates between African American and white women appeared (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1975-1990 – Death (2005-2006):
0.4% – increased annually (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1990-2000
2.3% – decreased annually (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1991-2000
3.7% – under 50 decreased (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1990-2000
2.0% – 50 and older decreased (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1992-2000 – Death (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
2.6% – Whites (2005-2006)
1.4% – Hispanics (2005-2006)
1.1% – African Americans (2005-2006)
1.1% – Asian and Pacific Islanders (2005-2006)
American Indian and Alaska Native – constant (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Probability of developing Breast Cancer in next 10 years:
——————————————————————
Age
——————————————————————
20 – 0.05% – 1 in 2,152 (2005-2006)
20 – 0.05% – 1 in 1,985 – 2000-2002 (2005-2006)†
——————————————————————
30 – 0.40% – 1 in 251 (2005-2006)
30 – 0.44% – 1 in: 229 – 2000-2002 (2005-2006)†
——————————————————————
40 – 1.45% – 1 in 69 (2005-2006)
40 – 1.46% – 1 in: 68 – 2000-2002 (2005-2006)†
——————————————————————
50 – 2.78% – 1 in 36 (2005-2006)
50 – 2.73% – 1 in: 37 – 2000-2002 (2005-2006)†
——————————————————————
60 – 3.81% – 1 in 26 (2005-2006)
60 – 3.82% – 1 in: 26 – 2000-2002 (2005-2006)†
——————————————————————
70 – 4.31% – 1 in 23 (2005-2006)
70 – 4.14% – 1 in: 24 – 2000-2002 (2005-2006)†
——————————————————————
Lifetime Probability (%) of Developing or Dying from Invasive Cancers by Race and Sex
——————————————————————
Developing

12.73 (1 in 8) – White (%) 2007-2009 (2013-2014)

10.87 (1 in 9) – African American (%) 2007-2009 (2013-2014)

Dying

3.25 (1 in 31) – African American (%) 2007-2009 (2013-2014)

2.73 (1 in 37) – White (%) 2007-2009 (2013-2014)

2005-2006 Currently, woman living in US has 13.2%, or 1 in 8, lifetime risk of developing breast cancer (2013-2014)

2005-2006: Overall, lifetime risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer gradually increased over past 3 decades (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
13.22% – Lifetime risk – 1 in: 8
Comparison of Cancer Incidence Rates between African Americans and Whites
——————————————————————
123.2 – White Rate* 2005-2009 (2013-2014)
121.7 – White Rate* 2003-2007 (2011-2012)
130.6 – White Rate* 2001-2005 +
——————————————————————
118.1 – African American Rate* 2005-2009 (2013-2014)
114.7 – African American Rate* 2003-2007 (2011-2012)
117.6 – African American Rate* 2001-2005 +
——————————————————————
-5.1 – Difference† 2005-2009 (2013-2014)
-7.0 – Absolute Difference† 2003-2007 (2011-2012)
-13.1 – Absolute Difference† 2001-2005 +
——————————————————————
0.96 – Rate Ratio‡ 2005-2009 (2013-2014)
0.94 – Rate Ratio‡ 2003-2007 (2011-2012)
0.90 – Rate Ratio‡ 2001-2005 +

*Rates per 100,000 age adjusted to 2000 US standard population

†Difference is rate in African Americans minus rate in whites

†Absolute difference is rate in African Americans minus rate in whites

‡Rate ratio is unrounded rate in African Americans divided by unrounded rate in whites

‡Rate ratio is rate in African Americans divided by rate in whites based on 2 decimal places

+ Source: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, 17 SEER Registries 2000-2005, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 2008
——————————————————————
Comparison of Cancer Death Rates between African Americans and Whites
——————————————————————
31.6 – African American Rate* 2005-2009
32.4 – African American Rate* 2003-2007 (2011-2012)
33.5 – African American Rate* 2001-2005 +
——————————————————————
22.4 – White Rate* 2005-2009
23.4 – White Rate* 2003-2007 (2011-2012)
24.4 – White Rate* 2001-2005 +
——————————————————————
9.2 – Difference† 2005-2009
9.0 – Absolute Difference† 2003-2007 (2011-2012)
9.1 – Absolute Difference† 2001-2005 +
——————————————————————
1.41 – Rate Ratio‡ 2005-2009
1.39 – Rate Ratio‡ 2003-2007 (2011-2012)
1.37 – Rate Ratio‡ 2001-2005 +

*Rates per 100,000 and age adjusted to 2000 US standard population

†Difference is rate in African Americans minus rate in whites

†Absolute difference is rate in African Americans minus rate in whites

‡Rate ratio is unrounded rate in African Americans divided by unrounded rate in whites

‡Rate ratio is rate in African Americans divided by rate in whites based on 2 decimal places

Stage Distribution African Americans and Whites
——————————————————————
Localized
——————————————————————
61% – White 2002-2008
61% – White 1999-2006
62% – White 1996-2004 +
——————————————————————
51% – African American 2002-2008
51% – African American 1999-2006
51% – African American 1996-2004 +
——————————————————————
Regional

38% – African American 2002-2008
39% – African American 1999-2006
37% – African American 1996-2004 +
——————————————————————
32% – White 2002-2008
32% – White 1999-2006
31% – White 1996-2004 +
——————————————————————
Distant
——————————————————————
8% – African American 2002-2008
8% – African American 1999-2006
10% – African American 1996-2004 +
——————————————————————
5% – White 2002-2008
5% – White 1999-2006
6% – White 1996-2004 +
——————————————————————
Unstaged
——————————————————————
3% – African American 2002-2008
3% – African American 1999-2006
3% – African American 1996-2004 +
——————————————————————
2% – White 2002-2008
2% – White 1999-2006
2% – White 1996-2004 +
——————————————————————
+ Source:
Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, 17 SEER Registries, 1973-2005, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 2008
——————————————————————
Probability of Developing Invasive Cancers Over Selected Age Intervals among African Americans by Sex +

Probability of Developing Invasive Cancers:
——————————————————————
Birth to 39 (%):
——————————————————————
0.53 (1 in 189) 2003-2005 * +
0.44 (1 in 229) 1998–2000 (2004)
0.44 (1 in 228) 1997–1999 (2003)
0.44 (1 in 229) 1996–1997 (2002)
——————————————————————
40 to 59(%):
——————————————————————
3.56 (1 in 28) – 40 to 59(%) 2003-2005 * +
4.14 (1 in 24) 1998–2000 (2004)
4.17 (1 in 24) 1997–1999 (2003)
4.17 (1 in 24) 1996–1997 (2002)

2.96 (1 in 34) – 60 to 69 (%) 2003-2005 * +
——————————————————————
60 to 79 (%):
——————————————————————
7.53 (1 in 13) 1998–2000 (2004)
7.14 (1 in 14) 1997–1999 (2003)
7.14 (1 in 14) 1996–1997 (2002)

5.44 (1 in 18) – 70 and Older (%) 2003-2005 * +
——————————————————————
Birth to Death (%)
——————————————————————
9.91 (1 in 10) – Birth to Death (%) 2003-2005 * +
13.36 (1 in 7) 1998–2000 (2004)
13.3 (1 in 8) 1997–1999 (2003)
12.5 (1 in 8) 1996–1997 (2002)

*For people free of cancer at beginning of age interval

+ Source:
DevCan:
Probability of Developing or Dying of Cancer Software, Version 6.3.0. Statistical Research and Applications Branch, National Cancer Institute, 2008
——————————————————————
2005-2006 Currently, woman living in US has 13.2%, or 1 in 8, lifetime risk of developing breast cancer (2013-2014)

result of rounding to nearest whole number, small decrease in lifetime risk (from 1 in 7.47 to 1 in 7.56) led to change in lifetime risk from 1 in 7 previously reported in Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2003-2004 and Cancer Facts & Figures 2005 to current estimate of 1 in 8
——————————————————————
2005-2006: Overall, lifetime risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer gradually increased over past 3 decades (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
5-YEAR SURVIVAL RATE – ALL
——————————————————————
Survival after diagnosis of breast cancer continues to decline after 5 years (2009-2010)

Survival after diagnosis of breast cancer continues to decline beyond 5 years (2006)
——————————————————————
5-YEAR RELATIVE SURVIVAL LOWER
——————————————————————
5-year relative survival lower among women with more advanced stage at diagnosis (2007-2008)

5-year relative survival lower among women with more advanced stage of disease at diagnosis (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2005-2006 African American women with breast cancer less likely than white women to survive 5 years:
——————————————————————
90% – white
76% – African American
——————————————————————
Likely to survive 5 years (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
88% – White
74% – African American
——————————————————————
5-YEAR SURVIVAL RATE – ALL STAGES – COMBINED
——————————————————————
89% – survival rate at 5 years for all stages combined (2009-2010)
——————————————————————
88% – all stages combined – 5 year
——————————————————————
77% – all stages combined – 10 year
——————————————————————
5-YEAR RELATIVE SURVIVAL RATE for ALL CANCERS COMBINED
——————————————————————
63% – 2004
62% – 2002-2003
——————————————————————
5-year Relative Survival Rates* for Cancers by Race and Stage

Five-year Relative Survival Rates* for Cancers by Race and Stage at Diagnosis

Five-Year Relative Survival Rates

5-year Relative Survival Rates (1995-2000 (2001) diagnosed) SEER 1975–2001 (2004)
——————————————————————
Localized
——————————————————————
99% – White 2002-2008 (2013-2014)
61% – White 1999-2006 (2011-2012)
99% – White 1996-2004 +
98% – White 1995–2000 (2005–2006)
——————————————————————
93% – African American 2002-2008 (2013-2014)
51% – African American 1999-2006 (2011-2012)
93% – African American 1996-2004 +
91% – African American 1995–2000 (2005–2006)
——————————————————————
Regional
——————————————————————
85% – White 2002-2008 (2013-2014)
32% – White 1999-2006 (2011-2012)
85% – White 1996-2004 +
82% – White 1995–2000 (2005–2006)
——————————————————————
73% – African American 2002-2008 (2013-2014)
39% – African American 1999-2006 (2011-2012)
72% – African American 1996-2004 +
68% – African American 1995–2000 (2005–2006)
——————————————————————
Distant
——————————————————————
25% – White 2002-2008 (2013-2014)
5% – White 1999-2006 (2011-2012)
29% – White 1996-2004 +
27% – White 1995–2000 (2005–2006)
——————————————————————
15% – African American 2002-2008 (2013-2014)
8% – African American 1999-2006 (2011-2012)
17% – African American 1996-2004 +
15% – African American 1995–2000 (2005–2006)
——————————————————————
All Stages
——————————————————————
90% – White 2002-2008 (2013-2014)
2% – White 1999-2006 (2011-2012)
90% – White 1996-2004 +
56% – White 1995–2000
(2005–2006)
——————————————————————
78% – African American 2002-2008 (2013-2014)
3% – African American 1999-2006 (2011-2012)
77% – African American 1996-2004 +
50% – African American 1995–2000 (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
*Survival rates based on patients diagnosed 2002-2008 followed through 2009

*Survival rates based on patients diagnosed 1999-2006 followed through 2007

Survival rates based on patients diagnosed 1996 – 2004 followed through 2005 +

Local:
invasive cancer confined entirely to organ of origin

Regional:

malignant cancer either

1) extended beyond limits of organ of origin directly into surrounding organs or tissues

2) involves regional lymph nodes by way of lymphatic system

3) both regional extension and involvement of regional lymph nodes

Distant:

malignant cancer spread to parts of body remote from primary tumor either by direct extension or by discontinuous metastasis to distant organs, tissues, or via lymphatic system to distant lymph nodes

+ Source:
Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, 17 SEER Registries, 1973-2005, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 2008
——————————————————————
Considering all races, 5-year relative survival:

98% – localized disease
81% – regional disease
26% – distant-stage disease

Larger tumor size at diagnosis associated with decreased survival
among women of all races with regional disease, 5-year relative survival:

92% – tumors less than or equal to 2.0 cm
77% – tumors 2.1-5.0 cm
65% – tumors greater than 5.0 cm
——————————————————————
OVERALL 5-YEAR CANCER SURVIVAL RATE (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
55% – 1995-2000 (2005-2006)
27% – 1960-1963 (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
5-YEAR RELATIVE SURVIVAL RATES
——————————————————————
89% – 5 year relative survival rates for women diagnosed with breast cancer after diagnosis (2007-2008)
88% – 5 year relative survival rates for women diagnosed with breast cancer after diagnosis (2005-2006)
87% – 5 year Breast Cancer Survival Rates after Diagnosis (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
age 75 + – 5 year relative survival rate among women diagnosed with breast cancer
——————————————————————
88% – 75 and older (2005-2006)
86% – 75 and over (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
age 65 + – 5 year relative survival rate among women diagnosed with breast cancer
——————————————————————
89% – 65-74 (2005-2006)
88% – 65 and over (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
5-year relative survival rate among women diagnosed with breast cancer
——————————————————————
88% – 55-64 (2005-2006)
89% – 40-74 (2005-2006)
87% – 45-54 (2005-2006)
83% – 45 (less than) (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
40 and older – 5-year relative survival rate
——————————————————————
89% – 40 and older – 5-year relative survival rate slightly lower among women diagnosed with breast cancer (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
younger than 40 – 5-year relative survival rate
——————————————————————
82% – before 40 – slightly lower among women diagnosed with breast cancer (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
82% – younger than 40 – slightly lower among women diagnosed with breast cancer before age 40 – may be due to tumors in age group being more aggressive (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
All – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis
——————————————————————
86% – 1992-1997 (2002) – 1974-1997
78% – 1983-1985 (2002) – 1974-1997
75% – 1974-1976 (2002) – 1974-1997
——————————————————————
WHITE WOMEN
——————————————————————
69% – white women (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
62% – white women (2007)
——————————————————————
90% – 1999-2006 white women (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
90% – 1996-2004 white women – 5-year relative survival rate for breast cancer diagnosed (2009-2010)
——————————————————————
90% – white women with breast cancer to survive 5 years (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
5-year survival greater among white women (2007)
——————————————————————
90% – 2002-2008 – overall 5-year relative survival rate for breast cancer diagnosed among white women
——————————————————————
88% – White women – Likely to survive 5 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
81% – White women – 5 year survivors: relative 5 year survival rate (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
62% – 1996-2004 – white women – 5-year relative survival rate for breast cancer diagnosed (2009-2010)
——————————————————————
90% – 1996-2002 – whites (2007) – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis (2002)
——————————————————————
90% – 1996-2002 – White – 5-Year Relative Survival – Breast 2007 (2007-2008) +
——————————————————————
89% – 1995-2000 – White – 5-year Relative Survival (1995-2000 (2001) Diagnosis) SEER 1975-2001 (2004) (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
87% – 1992-1997 – White – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis (2002)
——————————————————————
79% – 1983-1985 – White – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis (2002)
——————————————————————
75% – 1974-1976 – White – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis (2002)
——————————————————————
AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN
——————————————————————
78% – black women still living 5 years after getting disease (SEER, 2012)
——————————————————————
78% – 1999-2006 – 5-year relative survival rate for breast cancer diagnosed among African American women Survival and Stage at Distribution (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
76% – African American – 5 year survivors relative 5 year survival rate (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
74% – African American – Likely to survive 5 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
60% – African Americans – continue to have lower 5-year survival than whites overall and for each stage of diagnosis for most cancer sites (2013-2014)

African Americans continue to be less likely than whites to survive 5 years at each stage of diagnosis for most cancer sites (2009-2010)

Within each stage, 5-year survival also lower among African American women (2009-2010)

78% – 2002-2008 – overall 5-year relative survival rate for breast cancer diagnosed among African American women

77% – African American women with breast cancer less likely than white women to survive 5 years (2007-2008)
76% – African American women with breast cancer less likely than white women to survive 5 years 2005-2006

60% – 2002-2008 – overall 5-year relative survival rate among African Americans improved (2013-2014)

59% – 1999-2006 – African Americans continue to be less likely than whites to survive 5 years at each stage of diagnosis for most cancer sites (2011-2012)

58% – 1996-2004 – overall 5-year relative survival rate among African Americans improved (2009-2010)

77% – 1996-2002 – 5-Year Relative Survival – Breast – African American 2007 (2007-2008) +
77% – 1996-2002 – African American women (2007) – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis (2002)

72% – 1992-1997 – Black – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis (2002)

63% – 1983-1985 – Black – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis (2002)

63% – 1974-1976 – Black – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis (2002)

27% – 1960-1963 – overall 5-year relative survival rate among African Americans improved (2009-2014)
——————————————————————
1996-2002 – 5-Year Relative Survival – Breast 2007 – (Based on cancer patients diagnosed 1996-2002 followed through 2003) (2007-2008) +

(Source: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, 17 SEER Registries, 1975-2003, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 2006) (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
relative survival rates for women diagnosed with breast cancer (2005-2006):
•
88% – 5 years after diagnosis (2005-2006)
80% – 10 years (2005-2006)
71% – 15 years (2005-2006)
63% – 20 years (2005-2006)
•
Breast Cancer Survival Rates after Diagnosis:
•
87% – 5 years (2005-2006)
77% – 10 years (2005-2006)
63% – 15 years (2005-2006)
52% – 20 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2005-2006 – 5-year relative survival rate slightly lower among women diagnosed with breast cancer before age 40
•
may be due to tumors in age group being more aggressive and less responsive to hormonal therapy:
•
82% – younger than 40 (2005-2006)
89% – 40 – 74 (2005-2006)
88% – 75 and older (2005-2006)
•
5 year relative survival rate (2005-2006):
•
83% – < 45
87% – 45 – 54
88% – 55 – 64
89% – 65 – 74
88% – 65 and over
86% – 75 and over
——————————————————————
5 year survivors
relative 5 year survival rate (2005-2006):
•
81% – White
76% – African American
——————————————————————
10 year survivors after diagnosis
relative 5 year survival rate (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
87% – White
85% – African American
——————————————————————
LOCALIZED CANCER INCIDENCE RATES RATIOS per 100,000 (1975-2001) – 1995-2000 (2001) – Diagnosed Female breast (2005-2006): Localized – Of all breast cancers diagnosed 2005-2006
——————————————————————
143.2 – White
118.6 – African American

0.8 – African American / White Ratio
——————————————————————
2005-2006
1995-2000 – 5-year Relative Survival (1995-2000 (2001) Diagnosis) SEER 1975-2001 (2004)
89% – White (2005-2006)
75% – African American (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2005-2006
1995-2000 – 5-year Relative Survival Rates (1995-2000 (2001) diagnosed) SEER 1975-2001 (2004)
Female breast
——————————————————————
Localized
——————————————————————
98% – White (2005-2006)
91% – African American (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Regional
——————————————————————
82% – White (2005-2006)
68% – African American (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Distant
——————————————————————
27% – White (2005-2006)
15% – African American (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Unstaged
——————————————————————
56% – White (2005-2006)
50% – African American (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
LOCALIZED 5-YEAR RELATIVE SURVIVAL RATES (1995-2000 (2001) diagnosed) SEER 1975-2001 (2004) Female breast (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
98% – 1995-2000 – White
91% – 1995-2000 – African American
——————————————————————
LOCALIZED
——————————————————————
98% – 2010 – 5-year relative survival for localized breast cancer (malignant cancer that has not spread to lymph nodes or other locations outside breast) has increased (2009-2010)

98% – localized disease: 5-year relative survival – Considering all races (2007-2008)

98% – 2006 – 5-year relative survival for localized breast cancer (cancer not spread to lymph nodes or other locations outside breast) increased

98% – localized disease – 2005-2006 5-year relative survival lower among women with more advanced stage of disease at diagnosis: Considering all races

98% – 2005 – 5 year relative survival for localized

97% – 2004 – 5-year relative survival for localized breast cancer (cancer not spread to lymph nodes or other locations outside breast) increased

96% – 2002 – 5-year relative survival for localized breast cancer (cancer not spread to lymph nodes or other locations outside breast) increased

99% – 1996-2002 White – localized (2007-2008) *

94% – 1996-2002 African American – localized (2007-2008) *

80% – 1950s – 5-year relative survival for localized breast cancer (malignant cancer that has not spread to lymph nodes or other locations outside breast) has increased (2009-2010)

80% – 1950s – 5-year relative survival for localized breast cancer (cancer not spread to lymph nodes or other locations outside breast) increased (2006)

72% – 1940s – 5-year relative survival rate for localized breast cancer (cancer not spread to lymph nodes or other locations outside breast) increased (2002)
——————————————————————
5-year relative survival rate for breast cancer diagnosed at local stage
——————————————————————
77% – 1996-2004 – African American women – 5-year relative survival rate for breast cancer diagnosed at local stage (2009-2010)
——————————————————————
LOCALIZED
——————————————————————
62% – 1996-2002 White – Localized – Stage Distribution – Female breast (2007-2008)

64% – White – Localized (2005–2006)

64% – 1995-2000 (2001) – White: Diagnosed Female breast (2005-2006): Localized – Of all breast cancers diagnosed

5% – 1995-2000 (2001) – White: Diagnosed Female breast (2005-2006): Localized – Of all breast cancers diagnosed

52% – 1996-2002 African American – Localized – Stage Distribution – Female breast (2007-2008)

53% – African American – Localized (2005–2006)

53% – 1995-2000 (2001) – African American: Diagnosed Female breast (2005-2006): Localized – Of all breast cancers diagnosed
——————————————————————
REGIONAL 5-YEAR RELATIVE SURVIVAL RATES (1995-2000 (2001) diagnosed) SEER 1975-2001 (2004) Female breast (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
82% – 1995-2000 – White
68% – 1995-2000 – African American
——————————————————————
REGIONALLY
——————————————————————
84% – cancer spread regionally, current 5-year survival (2009-2010)

84% – regional disease – 5-year relative survival: Considering all races (2007-2008)

81% – regional disease – 5-year relative survival lower among women with more advanced stage of disease at diagnosis: Considering all races 2005-2006

85% – 1996-2002 White – Regional (2007-2008) *

80% – cancer spread regionally

78% – 2002 – 5-year relative survival rate: breast cancer spread regionally

72% – 1996-2002 African American – Regional (2007-2008) *
——————————————————————
36% – 1996-2002 African American – Regional: Stage Distribution – Female breast (2007-2008)

30% – 1996-2002 White – Regional: Stage Distribution – Female breast (2007-2008)

35% – African American – Regional (2005–2006)

35% – 1995-2000 (2001) – African American: Diagnosed
Female breast (2005-2006): Regional – Of all breast cancers diagnosed

28% – White – Regional (2005–2006)
——————————————————————
REGIONAL TUMORS
——————————————————————
94% – Larger tumor size at diagnosis also associated with decreased survival among women of all races with regional disease, 5-year relative survival for tumors less than or equal (2007-2008)

92% – tumors less than or equal to 2.0 cm – Larger tumor size at diagnosis associated with decreased survival among women of all races with regional disease, 5-year relative survival

77% – tumors 2.1-5.0 cm – Larger tumor size at diagnosis associated with decreased survival among women of all races with regional disease, 5-year relative survival

65% – tumors greater than 5.0 cm – Larger tumor size at diagnosis associated with decreased survival among women of all races with regional disease, 5-year relative survival
——————————————————————
DISTANT
——————————————————————
27% – women with distant spread (metastases) 5-year survival (2009-2010)

27% – 1995-2000 – White – Distant 5-year Relative Survival Rates (1995-2000 (2001) diagnosed) SEER 1975-2001 (2004) Female breast (2005-2006)

27% – distant-stage disease: 5-year relative survival, Considering all races (2007-2008)

26% – distant metastasis

26% – distant-stage disease – 2005-2006 5-year relative survival lower among women with more advanced stage of disease at diagnosis: Considering all races

28% – 1996-2002 White – Distant (2007-2008) *

21% – 2002 – 5-year relative survival rate: breast cancer distant metastasis

16% – 1996-2002 African American – Distant (2007-2008) *

15% – 1995-2000 – African American – Distant 5-year Relative Survival Rates (1995-2000 (2001) diagnosed) SEER 1975-2001 (2004) Female breast (2005-2006)

28% – 1995-2000 (2001) – White: Distant – Diagnosed Female breast (2005-2006): Of all breast cancers diagnosed
——————————————————————
9% – 1996-2002 African American – Distant – Stage Distribution African Americans – Female breast (2007-2008)

9% – African American – Distant (2005–2006)

9% – 1995-2000 (2001) – African American: Diagnosed
Female breast (2005-2006): Localized – Of all breast cancers diagnosed

6% – 1996-2002 White – Distant – Stage Distribution Whites – Female breast (2007-2008)

5% – White – Distant (2005–2006)
——————————————————————
UNSTAGED
——————————————————————
56% – 1996-2002 – Unstaged – White (2007-2008) *

56% – 1995-2000 – White – Unstaged 5-year Relative Survival Rates (1995-2000 (2001) diagnosed) SEER 1975-2001 (2004) Female breast (2005-2006)

50% – 1995-2000 – Unstaged – African American – 5-year Relative Survival Rates (1995-2000 (2001) diagnosed) SEER 1975-2001 (2004) Female breast (2005-2006)

45% – 1996-2002 – Unstaged – African American (2007-2008) *
——————————————————————
3% – 1996-2002 African American – Unstaged – Stage Distribution Whites – Female breast (2007-2008)

3% – African American – Unstaged (2005–2006)

3% – 1995-2000 (2001) – African American: Unstaged – Of all breast cancers diagnosed – Diagnosed
Female breast (2005-2006)

2% – 1996-2002 White – Unstaged – Stage Distribution Whites – Female breast (2007-2008)

2% – White – Unstaged (2005–2006)

2% – 1995-2000 (2001) – White: Diagnosed Female breast (2005-2006): Unstaged – Of all breast cancers diagnosed
——————————————————————
ALL – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis
——————————————————————
90% – 1999-2006 (2011) – 1975-2006
87% – 1992-1999 (2004)
87% – 1992-1999 (2004) – 1974-1999
86% – 1974-1998 (2003)
86% – 1992-1998 (2003) – 1974-1998
86% – 1992-1997 (2002) – 1974-1997
79% – 1984-1986 (2011) – 1975-2006
78% – 1983-1985 (2004)
78% – 1983-1985 (2004) – 1974-1999
78% – 1983-1985 (2002) – 1974-1997
75% – 1975-1977 (2011) – 1975-2006
78% – 1974-1998 (2003)
75% – 1974-1976 (2004)
75% – 1974-1976 (2004) – 1974-1999
75% – 1974-1976 (2002) – 1974-1997
——————————————————————
WHITE WOMEN – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis
——————————————————————
91% – 1999-2006 (2011) – 1975-2006
90% – 1996-2002 (2007)
88% – 1992-1999 (2004)
88% – 1992-1999 (2004) – 1974-1999
88% – 1992-1998 (2003) – 1974-1998
88% – 1974-1998 (2003)
87% – 1992-1997 (2002) – 1974-1997
81% – 1984-1986 (2011) – 1975-2006
79% – 1983-1985 (2004)
79% – 1983-1985 (2004) – 1974-1999
79% – 1983-1985 (2002) – 1974-1997
76% – 1975-1977 (2011) – 1975-2006
75% – 1974-1976 (2004)
75% – 1974-1976 (2004) – 1974-1999
75% – 1974-1976 (2002) – 1974-1997
——————————————————————
AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis
——————————————————————
78% – 1999-2006 (2011) – 1975-2006
77% – 1996-2002 (2007)
74% – 1992-1999 (2004)
74% – 1992-1999 (2004) – 1974-1999
73% – 1992-1998 (2003) – 1974-1998
73% – 1974-1998 (2003)
72% – 1992-1997 (2002) – 1974-1997
65% – 1984-1986 (2011) – 1975-2006
64% – 1983-1985 (2004)
64% – 1983-1985 (2004) – 1974-1999
63% – 1983-1985 (2002) – 1974-1997
63% – 1974-1998 (2003)
63% – 1974-1976 (2004)
63% – 1974-1976 (2004) – 1974-1999
63% – 1974-1976 (2002) – 1974-1997
62% – 1975-1977 (2011) – 1975-2006
——————————————————————
COMBINED – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis
——————————————————————
91% – 1999-2006 – White Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
90% – 1999-2006 – All – 1975-2006 (2011)
90% – 1996-2002 – White Women (2007)
87% – 1992-1997 – White Women – 1974-1997 (2002)
86% – 1992-1997 – All – 1974-1997 (2002)
81% – 1984-1986 – White Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
79% – 1984-1986 – All – 1975-2006 (2011)
79% – 1983-1985 – White Women – 1974-1997 (2002)
78% – 1999-2006 – African American Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
78% – 1983-1985 – All – 1974-1997 (2002)
77% – 1996-2002 – African American Women (2007)
76% – 1975-1977 – White Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
75% – 1975-1977 – All – 1975-2006 (2011)
75% – 1974-1976 – All – 1974-1997 (2002)
75% – 1974-1976 – White Women – 1974-1997 (2002)
72% – 1992-1997 – African American Women – 1974-1997 (2002)
65% – 1984-1986 – African American Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
63% – 1983-1985 – African American Women – 1974-1997 (2002)
63% – 1974-1976 – African American Women – 1974-1997 (2002)
62% – 1975-1977 – African American Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
——————————————————————
COMBINED by YEAR – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis
——————————————————————
91% – 1999-2006 – White Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
90% – 1999-2006 – All – 1975-2006 (2011)
78% – 1999-2006 – African American Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
——————————————————————
90% – 1996-2002 – White Women (2007)
77% – 1996-2002 – African American Women (2007)
——————————————————————
87% – 1992-1997 – White Women (2002)
86% – 1992-1997 – All (2002)
72% – 1992-1997 – African American Women (2002)
——————————————————————
81% – 1984-1986 – White Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
79% – 1984-1986 – All – 1975-2006 (2011)
65% – 1984-1986 – African American Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
——————————————————————
79% – 1983-1985 – White Women (2002)
78% – 1983-1985 – All (2002)
63% – 1983-1985 – African American Women (2002)
——————————————————————
76% – 1975-1977 – White Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
75% – 1975-1977 – All – 1975-2006 (2011)
62% – 1975-1977 – African American Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
——————————————————————
75% – 1974-1976 – All (2002)
75% – 1974-1976 – White Women (2002)
63% – 1974-1976 – African American Women (2002)
——————————————————————
Stages (%) – 5-Year Relative Survival Rates by Stage at Diagnosis
——————————————————————
97.0% – 1992-1999 – Local (2004)
97% – 1992-1998 – Local (2003)
96% – 1992-1997 – Local (2002)
——————————————————————
88% – 2006 – All Stages (2006)
86.6% – 1992-1999 – All Stages (2004)
86% – 1992-1998 – All Stages (2003)
86% – 1992-1997 – All Stages (2002)
——————————————————————
81% – Regional (2006)
78.7% – 1992-1999 – Regional (2004)
78% – 1992-1998 – Regional (2003)
78% – 1992-1997 – Regional (2002)
——————————————————————
26% – 2006 – distant metastases (2006)
23.3% – 1992-1999 – Distant (2004)
23% – 1992-1998 – Distant (2003)
21% – 1992-1997 – Distant metastases (2002)
——————————————————————
*
——————————————————————
1996-2002 – 5-Year Relative Survival Rates (5-year relative survival rate among cancer patients diagnosed 1996-2002 followed through 2003) *

Female breast – (Source: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, 17 SEER Registries, 1973-2003, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 2006) (2007-2008)

Local:

invasive cancer confined entirely to organ

Regional:

malignant cancer

1) extended beyond limits of organ of origin directly into surrounding organs or tissues

2) involves regional lymph nodes by way of lymphatic system

3) has both regional extension and involvement of regional lymph nodes

Distant:

cancer spread to parts of body remote from primary tumor either by direct extension or by discontinuous metastasis to distant organs, tissues, or via lymphatic system to distant lymph nodes

Source:

Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, 17 SEER Registries, 1975-2003, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 2006 (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
5-YEAR SURVIVAL – INVASIVE BREAST CANCER
——————————————————————
90% – 2002-2008 – women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer still living 5 years after getting disease (SEER, 2012)
——————————————————————
10-YEAR SURVIVAL RATES
——————————————————————
Caution should be used when interpreting 10-year survival rates since they represent detection and treatment circumstances 5-17 years ago and may underestimate expected survival based on current conditions (2009-2010)

Caution should be used when interpreting long-term survival rates since they reflect experience of women treated using past therapies and do not reflect recent trends in early detection or advances in treatment (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
87% – White – 10 year survivors after diagnosis relative 5 year survival rate (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
85% – African American – 10 year survivors after diagnosis relative 5 year survival rate (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
81% – 10 year – relative survival rates for women diagnosed with breast cancer (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
80% – 10 year – survival rate for all stages combined (2009-2010)
——————————————————————
80% – 10 years after diagnosis – relative survival rates for women diagnosed with breast cancer (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
77% – 10 year – Breast Cancer Survival Rates after Diagnosis (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
15-YEAR SURVIVAL RATE
——————————————————————
73% – 15 year – relative survival rates for women diagnosed with breast cancer (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
71% – 15 years after diagnosis – relative survival rates for women diagnosed with breast cancer (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
63% – 15 years – Breast Cancer Survival Rates after Diagnosis (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
20-YEAR SURVIVAL RATE
——————————————————————
63% – 20 years after diagnosis – relative survival rates for women diagnosed with breast cancer (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
52% – 20 years – Breast Cancer Survival Rates after Diagnosis (2005-2006)
======================================
Breast Cancer
American Cancer Society
Cancer Facts & Figures (2002-2014)
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[A] – .7/30/2013, Tuesday – Karmanos Cancer Center’s Dr. David Gorski appointed program co-director of Michigan Breast Oncology Quality Initiative:
——————————————————————
http://www.karmanos.org/News/Default.aspx?sid=1&nid=359
======================================
[B] – .7/30/2013 – Dr. Gorski named co-director of Michigan Breast Oncology Quality Initiative:
——————————————————————
http://prognosis.med.wayne.edu/article/dr-gorski-named-codirector-of-michigan-breast-oncology-quality-initiative
======================================
[C] – 07/30/2013 – Dr. Gorski named co-director of Michigan Breast Oncology Quality Initiative : ——————————————————————
http://www.wsupgdocs.org/news-and-media/WayneStateContentPage.aspx?nd=1293&news=515
======================================
[D] – 2/1/2011 – Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center Names Dr. David Gorski Leader of Breast Multidisciplinary Team:
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center has named David Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., leader of the Breast Multidisciplinary Team (MDT), effective Tuesday, Feb. 1
——————————————————————
http://m.prnewswire.com/news-releases/barbara-ann-karmanos-cancer-center-names-dr-david-gorski-leader-of-breast-multidisciplinary-team-115018114.html
======================================
[E] – 11/2/2011, Wednesday – Make the Right Move:
——————————————————————
http://www.karmanos.org/News/breast-cancer-specialists
======================================
[F]
——————————————————————
http://cancerbiologyprogram.med.wayne.edu/faculty/gorski.php
======================================
[G] – Research Interest:
——————————————————————
http://www.wsusurgery.com/research-team-dr-gorski/
======================================
[H]
——————————————————————
http://wsusurgery.com/facultyc3/david-gorski/
——————————————————————
http://www.wsusurgery.com/facultyc3/david-gorski/
======================================
[I]
——————————————————————
http://wsusurgery.com/research-team-dr-gorski/
——————————————————————
http://www.wsusurgery.com/research-team-dr-gorski/
======================================
[J]
——————————————————————
http://karmanos.org/Physicians/Details.aspx?sid=1&physician=70
——————————————————————
http://www.karmanos.org/Physicians/Details.aspx?sid=1&physician=70
======================================
[K]
——————————————————————
http://sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/
——————————————————————
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/
======================================
[L]
——————————————————————
http://www.scienceinmedicine.org/fellows/GorskiD.html
——————————————————————
http://scienceinmedicine.org/fellows/GorskiD.html
======================================
[M]
——————————————————————
http://sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
——————————————————————
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
======================================
[N]
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence
======================================
[O]
——————————————————————
http://ncas.org/2013/02/mar-9-david-h-gorski-quackademic.html?m=1
——————————————————————
http://www.ncas.org/2013/02/mar-9-david-h-gorski-quackademic.html?m=1
======================================
[P]
——————————————————————
http://whybiotech.com/?p=3808
——————————————————————
http://www.whybiotech.com/?p=3808
======================================
[Q]
——————————————————————
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gorski
======================================
[R] – Breast Cancer Research – Dr. Gorski:
——————————————————————
http://www.wsusurgery.com/breast-cancer-research-dr-gorski/
======================================
[S] – Selected Publications:
——————————————————————
http://www.wsusurgery.com/selected-publications-dr-gorski/
======================================
[T] – Lab Photos:
——————————————————————
http://www.wsusurgery.com/lab-photos-dr-gorski/
======================================
[U]
——————————————————————
https://www.doximity.com/pub/david-gorski-md
======================================
[V] – Detroit, Michigan population
——————————————————————
http://www.worldpopulationstatistics.com/detroit-population-2013/
======================================
[W]
——————————————————————
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26/2622000.html
======================================
[X]
——————————————————————
http://www.city-data.com/city/Detroit-Michigan.html
======================================
[Y] – 11/13/2013 – The War on Cancer (I don’t think it means, what you think it says it means) #Winning?:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/httpcancer-orgacsgroupscontentepidemiologysurveilancedocumentsdocumentacspc-036845-pdf/
======================================
[Z] – 3/9/2013 – Quackademic Medicine: How pseudoscience is infiltrating medical academia.”
——————————————————————
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mewOSMNgfGQ&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DmewOSMNgfGQ
======================================
[]
——————————————————————
http://www.nixonlibrary.gov/forresearchers/find/tapes/excerpts/watergate.php
——————————————————————
http://whitehousetapes.net/transcript/nixon/cancer-presidency
——————————————————————
http://m.washingtonpost.com/politics/cancer-on-the-presidency/2012/06/08/gJQAp24LOV_video.html
——————————————————————
http://www.history.com/speeches/nixon-and-dean-discuss-watergate
======================================
2013-2014 Breast Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

——————————————————————

——————————————————————
2013-2014 Cancer Facts & Figures for African Americans
——————————————————————

——————————————————————

——————————————————————
2012-2014 Cancer Facts & Figures for Hispanics / Latinos
——————————————————————

——————————————————————

======================================
2013 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2013
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2013
——————————————————————
2013-2014 Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

——————————————————————

——————————————————————

——————————————————————
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.21203/full
——————————————————————
2013
——————————————————————

——————————————————————

——————————————————————
2012-2013 Survivorship
——————————————————————

——————————————————————

——————————————————————
2013 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

——————————————————————

——————————————————————
2013 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2013/index
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2013/index
======================================
2011-2012 Breast Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/breastcancerfactsfigures/breast-cancer-facts-and-figures-2011-2012
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/breastcancerfactsfigures/breast-cancer-facts-and-figures-2011-2012
——————————————————————
Breast Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/breast-cancer-facts-figures
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/breast-cancer-facts-figures
——————————————————————
2012 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

——————————————————————

——————————————————————
2012 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2012/index
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2012/index
——————————————————————
2012 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2012
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2012
——————————————————————
2011-2012 Cancer Facts & Figures for African Americans
——————————————————————

——————————————————————

======================================
2011 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

——————————————————————

——————————————————————
2011 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2011
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2011
——————————————————————
2009-2011 Cancer Facts & Figures for Hispanics / Latinos
——————————————————————

——————————————————————

======================================
2010
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/breastcancerfactsfigures/breast-cancer-facts-figures-2009-2010
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/breastcancerfactsfigures/breast-cancer-facts-figures-2009-2010
——————————————————————
2009-2010 Breast Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

——————————————————————

——————————————————————
2010 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

——————————————————————

——————————————————————
2010 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2010/index
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2010/index
——————————————————————
2009-2010 Cancer Facts & Figures for African Americans
——————————————————————

——————————————————————

======================================
2009
——————————————————————
http://www.komenstlouis.org/site/DocServer/DiversityAsianPacific.pdf?docID=222
——————————————————————
2009-2010 Cancer Facts & Figures for African Americans
——————————————————————

——————————————————————

——————————————————————
2009 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

——————————————————————

——————————————————————
2009 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2009/index
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2009/index
——————————————————————
2009 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2009
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2009
======================================
Breast Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://www.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/breastcancerfactsfigures/
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/breastcancerfactsfigures/
——————————————————————
2007-2008 Breast Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

——————————————————————

——————————————————————
Cancer Facts and Statistics
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/index
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/index
——————————————————————
2008 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/allcancerfactsfigures/index
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/allcancerfactsfigures/index
——————————————————————
2008 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2008/index
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2008/index
——————————————————————
2008 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

——————————————————————

——————————————————————
2008 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

——————————————————————

——————————————————————
Global
——————————————————————

——————————————————————

——————————————————————
2008 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2008/index
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2008/index
——————————————————————
Cancer Facts and Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/allcancerfactsfigures/index
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/allcancerfactsfigures/index
======================================
2007-2008 Breast Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

——————————————————————

——————————————————————

——————————————————————
http://komen.org/BreastCancer/BreastFactsReferences.html
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
http://ww5.komen.org/BreastCancer/BreastFactsReferences.html
——————————————————————
2007 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

——————————————————————

——————————————————————
2007 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2007/index
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2007/index
——————————————————————
2007 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2007
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2007
——————————————————————
2007-2008 Cancer Facts & Figures for African Americans
——————————————————————

——————————————————————

——————————————————————
2006-2008 Cancer Facts & Figures for Hispanics / Latinos
——————————————————————

——————————————————————

======================================
2006 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

——————————————————————

——————————————————————
2006 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2006
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2006
——————————————————————
2005-2006 Breast Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/breastcancerfactsfigures/breast-cancer-facts–figures-2005-2006
——————————————————————
2005-2006 Breast Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

——————————————————————

——————————————————————
2005-2006 Breast Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/breastcancerfactsfigures/breast-cancer-facts–figures-2005-2006
——————————————————————
2005-2006 Cancer Facts & Figures for African Americans
——————————————————————

——————————————————————

======================================
2005 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

——————————————————————

——————————————————————

——————————————————————
http://worldwidebreastcancer.com/learn/breast-cancer-statistics-worldwide/
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
http://www.worldwidebreastcancer.com/learn/breast-cancer-statistics-worldwide/
——————————————————————
Cancer Facts and Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/allcancerfactsfigures/index
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/allcancerfactsfigures/index
——————————————————————
2005 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2005
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2005
======================================
2003-2004 Breast Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

——————————————————————

——————————————————————
2004 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

======================================
2003
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/detailedguide/breast-cancer-references
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/detailedguide/breast-cancer-references
——————————————————————
2003 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

======================================
2002 – American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

——————————————————————

——————————————————————
2002 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

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

Wikipedia or Wikipediantic ? – wants your 3 pounds of flesh (WikiPEEdia, UR all INe)

Posted on December 9, 2013 by didymusjudasthomas

[WP:SOP] “Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then. 7.”)

Due & undue weight: [3]

“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

Who ?

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 [1] (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 right joking me

(joking me ? Quit jokin’ me !)

JimCrow’s ’bout as “libertarian” as Fidel Castro with 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“
——————————————————————
seriously ?

Seriously ??

SERIOUSLY ???

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”
——————————————————————
How ’bout:

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 !

Whazzamatta Jiminy?

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, [1] Jimbroni is the “co-founder” who tries to re-write history to make it appear that “HE” is the one-and-only Fascist 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
——————————————————————
Principles

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 GorskGeek as 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 false god Gorski, the Closet Communist of Science-Based Medicine a/k/a Science-Basted Medicine aka Science-Based Mudicine (Spinning Bowel Movement), Wiki Wordsmith 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, unadulterated Alabama B.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 appeal e-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
wikiagk@gmail.com 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”

[User Talk:JzG|Guy] ([User JzG/help|Help!]) [2]

——————————————————————
“Bullshit movie” ?
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
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: [4]

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 article includes 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?

FACTS:

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 published 7 days ago (12/17/2012 to 12/24/2012) as:

“…nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it…”

12/17/2012
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3524164
CDA-2 (cell differentiation agent 2), a URINARY preparation
http://po.st/g71N8P
CDA-2 and its main component PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE (PG or PAG)
Antineoplaston AS2-5 is PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE (PAG or PG)
http://redd.it/1dk974
Antineoplaston AS2-1 is a 4:1 mixture of phenylacetic acid (PA) and PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE (PAG or PG)
Antineoplastons AS2-5 and AS2-1 are derived from Antineoplaston A10
BURZYNSKI Reference: 22.
antineoplaston AS21
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0052117
======================================
12/26/2012, Wednesday – 12:43 – “There is unlikely to be any dispassionate debate over ANPs while Burzynski continues with his unethical practices.”

JzG|Guy User:JzG/help|Help!

Wikipedia: Judge, Jury, Executioner
======================================

“The world, right now, considers Burzynski to be at best unethical and at worst a quack…”?

Since when did Wikipedia conduct a world-wide “opinion poll” re Burzynski ?

And if Wikipedia is correct, how did this happen ?

Burzynski referenced by other Cancer researchers:

2011 – Phase II trial of tipifarnib and radiation in children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas
http://neuro-oncology.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/3/298.full
University of California—San Francisco

Children’s Hospital Boston, Massachusetts

St Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee

Seattle Children’s Hospital, Seattle, Washington

Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Children’s National Medical Center, Washington, DC

Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Ohio

Neuro Oncol (2011) 13 (3): 298-306
doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noq202

5.723 Impact Factor

25. ↵ Burzynski SR
Treatments for astrocytic tumors in children: current and emerging strategies
Paediatr Drugs. 2006;8:167-178
http://link.springer.com/article/10.2165%2F00148581-200608030-00003
Pediatric Drugs
May 2006, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 167-178
======================================

——————————————————————
Rhode Island Red attempts 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: [3]

“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 Burzynski continues 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

See below:
——————————————————————
“CONCLUSION:

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 NOT smarter 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

“BULL CHIPS”

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:

1. Alexbrn
2. fluffernutter
3. NE Ent
4. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 (Seb az86556)
5. Tom Morris
6. Guerillero
7. Dave Dial
8. John
9. Nstrauss
10. Yobol
11. Drmies
12. foxj
13. Ironholds
14. Rhode Island Red
15. Anthony (AGK) BASC wikiagk@gmail.com
16. Steve Pereira (Silk Tork) silktork@gmail.com
——————————————————————
WikiWhOReD (Wiki + Word + Whore): Pimping a word. Attempting to deceive someone by means of misdirection with words
——————————————————————
The South will rise again, just not in Jimbroni’s pants
——————————————————————
Happy Friday the 13th, Wikipediantic
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – 6/27/2013 – Jimmy Wales Is Not an Internet Billionaire (By AMY CHOZICK):
——————————————————————
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/magazine/jimmy-wales-is-not-an-internet-billionaire.html
======================================
[2] – 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:52 pm – 21:52 (UTC) – [User Talk:JzG|Guy] ([User:JzG/help|Help!])
——————————————————————
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burzynski_Clinic&diff=next&oldid=529537854
======================================
[3] – 12/26/2012 – Lola A. Quinlan:
——————————————————————
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burzynski_Clinic&diff=prev&oldid=529836971
——————————————————————
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burzynski_Clinic&diff=next&oldid=529836971
——————————————————————
Houston’s KPRC News:
——————————————————————
http://m.click2houston.com/news/Houston-cancer-doctor-draws-new-complaints-from-patients/-/16714936/8581480/-/hmrbjk/-/index.html
——————————————————————
Lola A. Quinlan’s attorney’s web-site:
——————————————————————
http://www.jag-lawfirm.com/burzynski-suit-kprc-02012012.html
======================================
[4] – –
——————————————————————
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Didymus_Judas_Thomas&diff=next&oldid=528610760
======================================

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

How to Crank your Congressperson (according to “The Skeptics”: USA TODAY vs. Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski)

Posted on December 7, 2013 by didymusjudasthomas

Let’s say you’re one of “The Skeptics,” (“The Burzynski Skeptics,”) don’t have a life (but doesn’t that go without saying ?), enjoy associating yourself with known liars, cowards, ethically and intellectually challenged individuals, so you grab a newspaper (It’s doubtful that USA TODAY would qualify), and if you do NOT know what a “Newsie” is, go online and select an article which has a plethora of innuendo and allegations, compose a missive to your member in Congress assembled about the nothingness you just reviewed, just don’t piss yourself silly when you shoot that zinger off, because you’ve just sent something to your Congressperson, exhibiting what a whacky weed tobacco day tripper you are, and a prime example of what “Rocky Mountain High” really will mean, starting January 1st, 2014

Congratulations, Colorado

My only suggestion is that you add something like:

“Dear Congressperson Y,

I know your time is valuable, but please allow me to waste some of you and your staff’s, as well as provide you with “fodder” you can hang up on the bathroom wall and laugh about for days!

In the next weeks I will be contacting you about all of the “conspiracy theories” in Jesse Ventura’s book, including; but not limited to:

Area 51
Aliens
The Denver International Airport
…

Smoke ’em if ya got ’em !
======================================

Letter to Congress

Dear CONGRESSPERSON’S NAME:

My name is _______ and I am one of your constituents

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, I 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 prices

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

Additionally, since I last contacted your office, the FDA has released site inspection notes into the electronic FOIA reading room 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, therapeutic response […] for 67% of study subjects reviewed during the inspection.”

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

This means that his outcomes figures for these studies are inaccurate

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

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

The FDA told Burzynski:

“You failed to protect the rights, safety, and welfare of subjects under your care

Forty-eight (48) subjects experienced 102 investigational overdoses between January 1, 2005 and February 22, 2013, according to the [trial number redacted] List of Hospitalizations/SAE (serious adverse events) [redacted] Overdose [redacted]/Catheter Infection report

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 family members to administer the drugs via programmable pump on their own

Further, patient records show that there were many more overdoses that were not included in the Hospitalization/SAE/Overdose list

The FDA reported:

“Your […] tumor 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 antineoplaston treatment

This means that Burzynski’s studies–which by last account cost $30,000 to begin and $7000 a month to maintain–are unpublishable

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

Patients who had Grade 3 or 4 toxic effects were supposed to be removed from treatment

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

Another patient had 7 disqualifying toxic events before he was removed from the study

Burzynski did not report all adverse events as required by his study protocols

One patient had 12 events of hypernatremia (high sodium), none of which was reported

There are several similar patients

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

For instance one patient had an adverse event in 1998 and the oversight board did not hear about it until 2005.)

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

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

The clinic was unable to account for its stock of the investigational drug, an act that would get any other research lab shut down

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

Despite these findings, when interviewed by USA Today, Burzynski actually said of his former cancer patients:

“As for criticism from former patients, Burzynski says, ‘We see patients from various walks of life

We see great people

We see crooks

We have prostitutes

We have thieves

We have mafia bosses

We have Secret Service agents

Many people are coming to us, OK?

Not all of them are the greatest people in the world

And many of them would like to get money from us

They pretend they got sick and they would like to extort money from us.’”

I am asking you to help me understand what happened at the FDA to allow this man to conduct clinical trials and bankrupt patients in the process despite 10 years of alarming reviews by the FDA

I also ask you to support an investigation into this betrayal of over 8,000 patients and to push for legislation to prevent the most desperate patients from such unthinkable exploitation

I will be calling your office next week to touch base with you and I look forward to your response

Sincerely,
======================================
REFERENCE:
======================================
Letter to Congress:
——————————————————————
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hx3KJ6mmCd8MTdlbdXb2r2qrN9l3JjrzdJrHh0VIJXo/mobilebasic?pli=1
======================================
Burzynski: court cases
—————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/burzynski-court-cases/
—————————————————————
Main Page – Stanislawrajmundburzynski
——————————————————————
http://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wiki-site.com/index.php/Main_Page
======================================

USA TODAY and “The Skeptics” selling false hope to cancer patients

Posted on December 4, 2013 by didymusjudasthomas

——————————————————————
Irrespective Insolence
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
Hill ?

Sharon Hill ??

Does anyone know SHARON HILL ???
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
no ?

NoNo ??

NO NEVER MATTER
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
NOT HARDLY !

If it’s “Doubtful News”, that’s a “Hint and a Half” that it’s “Doubtful” it’s “News” [1]

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 [2]
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
“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 [4]
——————————————————————
The best Szabo could cite as support was:
——————————————————————
3/19/2008 – “Prostate cancer treatments’ sexual, urinary side effects compared” [5]
——————————————————————
Exactly how did Liz Szabo “win” that “pissing contest” ?

Even a monkey can report the news:

10/18/2013 – Monkeys ‘talk in turns’ [6]

If @LizSzabo wanted to do a REAL article on “selling false hope to cancer patients”, then USA TODAY should have done an “investigation” on something like THIS:
======================================
8/25/2010, Wednesday [7]
——————————————————————
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 Judge James A. Teilborg

Ordered to pay $128,724 ($75,000 fine $53,724 in 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
2. Canada
3. United Kingdom
4. Belgium
5. the Netherlands

According to plea agreement, charged:
$23.68 for 10 grams of purported DCA
$45.52 for 20 grams
or
$110.27 for 100 grams
plus shipping

Admitted sent victims white powdery substance later determined through laboratory tests to contain:
1. dextrin
2. dextrose
3. lactose
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
or
2. Canada
since:
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:
1. forfeit
or
2. cancel
any:
1. website
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:
1. domestic
2. international
3. intellectual property crimes
protect:
1. health
2. safety
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:
1. federal
2. state
3. local
law enforcement partners
increased focus on international enforcement efforts, including reinforcing relationships with key:
1. foreign partners
2. U.S. industry leaders

To learn more about IP Task Force, go to http://www.justice.gov/dag/iptaskforce/

Announced:
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 [8]
——————————————————————
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’s Robert 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 claims Dr. Bennett submitted for reimbursement from federal grants (1/1/2003 – 8/31/2010) for:
1. food
2. hotels
3. travel
4. other expenses
5. professional and consulting services
6. subcontracts
that benefited:
1. Dr. Bennett
2. family
3. friends

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
4. Northwestern

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
2. family
3. friends
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
2. meals
3. hotels
for
1. himself
2. friends
and “consulting fees” for unqualified:
1. friends
2. family members
including:
1. brother
2. cousin

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,”

he added

“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 ! [9]
——————————————————————
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:
1. Medicaid
2. Medicare
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:
1. Medicaid
2. Medicare
for services clinical trial sponsor agreed to pay

(and, in some cases, actually did pay, thereby resulting in Emory’s being 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”

Are you smarter than a 5th-grader ?
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – 11/15/2013 – Burzynski exposed in USA Today:
——————————————————————
http://doubtfulnews.com/2013/11/burzynski-exposed-in-usa-today/
======================================
[2] – 5/6/2013 – Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 10):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/06/critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-10/
======================================
[3] – 5/7/2013 – Critiquing: Is Eric Merola issuing bogus DMCA takedown notices against critics of Stanislaw Burzynski?:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/critiquing-is-eric-merola-issuing-bogus-dmca-takedown-notices-against-critics-of-stanislaw-burzynski/
======================================
[4] – 8/3/2011 – Urine test may help predict prostate cancer risk:
——————————————————————
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/medical/health/medical/cancer/story/2011/08/Urine-test-may-help-predict-prostate-cancer-risk/49790014/1?fullsite=true
——————————————————————
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/medical/health/medical/cancer/story/2011/08/Urine-test-may-help-predict-prostate-cancer-risk/49790014/1
======================================
[5] – 3/19/2008 – “Prostate cancer treatments’ sexual, urinary side effects compared”:
——————————————————————
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-03-19-prostate-cancer_N.htm
======================================
[6] – 10/18/2013 – Monkeys ‘talk in turns’:
——————————————————————
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/language/wordsinthenews/2013/10/131018_witn_monkeys.shtml
======================================
[7] – 8/2010
——————————————————————
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/August/10-crm-958.html
======================================
[8] – 7/30/2013
——————————————————————

http://www.justice.gov/usao/iln/pr/chicago/2013/pr0730_01.html
======================================
[9] – 8/28/2013 – Emory University
——————————————————————
http://www.justice.gov/usao/gan/press/2013/08-28-13b.html
======================================
[10] – 5/24/1993
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/5241993-court-testimony-of-nicholas-petronas-md/
======================================

Didymus Judas Thomas' Hipocritical Oath Blog

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

Tag Archives: tumor

Pete Cohen films Pat and Steve Clarkson

Pete Cohen talks with Burzynski Patient

Cancer: It’s what’s Best for Business (WW3 – World War Hypocrisy)