Pete Cohen talks to Steve and Mary Jo Siegel

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisement

Pete Cohen talks with Doug Olson

——————————————————————
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
——————————————————————

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

Pete Cohen talks with Burzynski Patient

——————————————————————
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
——————————————————————

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

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

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)

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)
——————————————————————
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

+ Source: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, 17 SEER Registries 2000-2005, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 2008
——————————————————————
Stage Distribution for Selected Cancers in African Americans and Whites

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
——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-040951.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-040951.pdf

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

Click to access acspc-036921.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-036921.pdf

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

Click to access acspc-034778.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-034778.pdf

======================================
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
——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-040951.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-040951.pdf

——————————————————————

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

Click to access breast-cancer-facts-2012.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access breast-cancer-facts-2012.pdf

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

Click to access acspc-033876.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-033876.pdf

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

Click to access acspc-036845.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-036845.pdf

——————————————————————
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
——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-031941.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-031941.pdf

——————————————————————
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
——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-027765.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-027765.pdf

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

Click to access acspc-029771.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-029771.pdf

——————————————————————
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
——————————————————————

Click to access ffhispanicslatinos20092011.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access ffhispanicslatinos20092011.pdf

======================================
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
——————————————————————

Click to access f861009final90809pdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access f861009final90809pdf.pdf

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

Click to access acspc-024113.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-024113.pdf

——————————————————————
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
——————————————————————

Click to access cffaa20092010pdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access cffaa20092010pdf.pdf

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

Click to access cffaa20092010pdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access cffaa20092010pdf.pdf

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

Click to access 500809webpdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access 500809webpdf.pdf

——————————————————————
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
——————————————————————

Click to access bcfffinalpdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access bcfffinalpdf.pdf

——————————————————————
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
——————————————————————

Click to access 2008cafffinalsecuredpdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access 2008cafffinalsecuredpdf.pdf

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

Click to access worldcancer.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access worldcancer.pdf

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

Click to access acspc-027766.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-027766.pdf

——————————————————————
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
——————————————————————

Click to access bcfffinalpdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access bcfffinalpdf.pdf

——————————————————————

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

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

Click to access caff2007pwsecuredpdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access caff2007pwsecuredpdf.pdf

——————————————————————
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
——————————————————————

Click to access caff2007aaacspdf2007pdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access caff2007aaacspdf2007pdf.pdf

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

Click to access caff2006hisppwsecuredpdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access caff2006hisppwsecuredpdf.pdf

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

Click to access caff2006pwsecuredpdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access caff2006pwsecuredpdf.pdf

——————————————————————
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
——————————————————————

Click to access caff2005brfacspdf2005pdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access caff2005brfacspdf2005pdf.pdf

——————————————————————
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
——————————————————————

Click to access caff2005aacorrpwsecuredpdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access caff2005aacorrpwsecuredpdf.pdf

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

Click to access caff2005f4pwsecuredpdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access caff2005f4pwsecuredpdf.pdf

——————————————————————

——————————————————————
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
——————————————————————

Click to access caff2003brfpwsecuredpdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access caff2003brfpwsecuredpdf.pdf

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

Click to access CancerRates2004.pdf

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

Click to access 2003_ACS_Cancer_Facts.pdf

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

Click to access acspc-027766.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-027766.pdf

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

Click to access CancerFacts&Figures2002.pdf

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

Critiquing: Stanislaw Burzynski in USA Today: Abuse of clinical trials and patients versus the ineffectiveness of the FDA and Texas Medical Board (Josia Cotto)

David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., FACS “Check My Facts” Hack “Orac”, finally ends his 11/15/2013 diatribe of Dr. Burzynski by USA TODAY’s Liz Szabo, Michael Stravato, Jerry Mosemak, and Robert Hanashiro, with:
——————————————————————
“The concluding section of the story tells us why we need to try:”

“No one told Josia’s parents about any of this”

“Not Burzynski”

“Not the FDA”

“Jose and Niasia Cotto had no idea that their son’s death prompted an investigation by the FDA, until they were contacted by USA TODAY”

“The Cottos had long believed that Burzynski could have cured their son if only they had taken Josia to see him first, before giving him radiation and chemotherapy”

“They had even hoped to launch a non-profit, A Life for Josia Foundation, to help other children with cancer gain access to Burzynski’s treatment“

“Now, they don’t know what to think”
——————————————————————
So what good did Gorski do here, if any ?

1. He offers no opinion as to if he thinks Burzynski should have been responsible for advising Jose and Niasia Cotto that Josia Cotto’s death prompted an investigation by the FDA

2. He offers no opinion as to if he thinks the FDA should have been responsible for advising Jose and Niasia Cotto that Josia Cotto’s death prompted an investigation

3. He offers no opinion as to if he thinks Burzynski could have cured Jose and Niasia Cotto’s son, Josia Cotto’s if only they had been able to take Josia to Burzynski first

4. He offers no opinion as to what he thinks about the FDA requiring Josia Cotto to receive radiation and chemotherapy, and them failing Josia, before he was able to utilize antineoplaston therapy

Gorski might as well NOT even be here if all he’s going to do is repost the same thing USA TODAY published, yet “say” absolutely NOTHING

Personally, I think it’s has to do with what was said during the July TAM 2013 twaddle, when the female panelist made a comment about “people without BALLS”
——————————————————————
Since I have mine, here’s what I think:

1. If there was a moral or legal duty to advise Jose and Niasia Cotto that the passing of Josia prompted an investigation by the FDA, then it was the FDA’s responsibility

2. I think that if the FDA was NOT requiring patients like Josia Cotto to 1st be failed by conventional treatments like surgery, radiation, and / or chemotherapy, there is a chance that Burzynski’s antineoplaston therapy could be more effective because of:
======================================
What USA TODAY, Liz Szabo, Michael Stravato, Jerry Mosemak, and Robert Hanashiro DID NOT TELL YOU ABOUT:
——————————————————————
12/2002 Burzynski interview [3]
——————————————————————
INTRAVENOUS
——————————————————————
1. Treatment require strong commitment from patients as must be infused with Antineoplastons for many weeks or months ?
——————————————————————
2. Perhaps 15% of patients taking intravenous infusions of Antineoplastons
——————————————————————
3. Patients who have most advanced type of cancer will require heavy dosages
——————————————————————
4. When give large dosages intravenously, have to watch fluid balance…and electrolyte balance
——————————————————————
5. Intravenous infusion can deliver equivalent of 3,000 tablets a day
——————————————————————
ORAL – CAPSULES OR TABLETS
——————————————————————
1. Most patients taking oral formulations
——————————————————————
2. Capsules or tablets
——————————————————————
3. Limitation of how much medicine can take by mouth
——————————————————————
4. 50 or 60 tablets a day pretty much all you can take by mouth
——————————————————————
5. When give orally, see practically no side effects at all
——————————————————————
6. Patients may develop skin rash, which may last for day or two
——————————————————————
7. Don’t see any delayed toxicity once treatment stops
——————————————————————
8. Everything practically goes back to normal within day or two
——————————————————————
9. Doesn’t even come close to adverse reactions that experience with chemotherapy
——————————————————————
FDA requirements
——————————————————————
1. Most patients who come to us have received prior heavy radiation therapy, or chemotherapy
——————————————————————
2. Usually die from complications from these treatments
——————————————————————
3. Those who survive longest are patients who previously did not receive radiation therapy or chemotherapy
——————————————————————
4. Longest survivor in this category is now reaching 15 years from time of diagnosis; and she’s in perfect health
——————————————————————
12/10/1997 [4]
——————————————————————
1. In addition to original family of Antineoplaston compounds

(the “Parental Generation”)
——————————————————————
2. Development of 2nd generation of Antineoplastons

In cell culture experiments 2nd generation Antineoplastons developed have been shown to be at least

Thousand times more potent then
Parental Generation
——————————————————————
3. 3rd generation structurally altered Antineoplaston believe will exhibit markedly improved anticancer activity in human cancer cell lines resistant to
Parental Generation
—————————————————————
12/2000 Egypt antineoplaston study [5]
——————————————————————
4 new piperidinedione A10 analogs synthesized and tested on human breast cancer cell line against prototype A10 and anti cancer drug tamoxifen and DNA binding capacity of compounds evaluated against A10
——————————————————————
“3B” and “3D” were several-fold more potent antiproliferative agents than A10 and tamoxifen and had significantly higher capacity to bind DNA than A10
—————————————————————
10/1/2001 Egypt antineoplaston study [5]
——————————————————————
Structural characterization of new antineoplaston (ANP) representatives
——————————————————————
Combination heat with pH modification had virtually no effect on obtained peaks, attesting to stability and purity of compounds
——————————————————————
One had superior affinity to DNA than
prototype ANP-A10
======================================
So, what do we know from this interview with Burzynski from over a decade ago, his 12/10/1997 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing and the antineoplaston research from Egypt ?
——————————————————————
1. Oral (capsule and tablets): PRACTICALLY NO SIDE EFFECTS at all
——————————————————————
2. Those who survive longest are patients who previously did NOT receive radiation therapy or chemotherapy
——————————————————————
3. 2nd generation of Antineoplastons have been shown to be at least a THOUSAND TIMES MORE POTENT then Parental Generation
——————————————————————
4. 3rd generation structurally altered Antineoplaston believe will exhibit markedly improved anticancer activity in human cancer cell lines resistant to Parental Generation
——————————————————————
5. The research from Egypt shows promising results for binding to DNA
——————————————————————
I doubt Dr. Gorski will be blogging about the above, anytime soon, as it

DOES NOT FIT HIS NARRATIVE
======================================
2000 – Thomas Navarro [3]
——————————————————————
What happened to Donna and Jim Navarro when they chose Burzynski’s treatment over orthodox treatments ?
——————————————————————
4 year old Thomas Navarro diagnosed with medulloblastoma
——————————————————————
Operated on
——————————————————————
Tumor removed
——————————————————————
Scheduled for radiation therapy
——————————————————————
Parents knew he’d be damaged by radiation therapy
——————————————————————
Nobody his age survives this type of tumor anyway after radiation therapy
——————————————————————
Why they decided to go to Burzynski Clinic
——————————————————————
Could NOT treat him because FDA requires failure of radiation therapy for such patients
——————————————————————
Parents decided NOT to take any treatment
——————————————————————
Burzynski asked FDA several times to allow administration of Antineoplastons, because already had successful treatments for some other children without any prior radiation
——————————————————————
5/2001 – developed numerous tumors
——————————————————————
Burzynski suggested to parents they should go for at least chemotherapy
——————————————————————
Went for chemotherapy to one of best centers in the country, Beth Israel Hospital in New York
——————————————————————
Chemotherapy was successful, but he almost died from it
——————————————————————
Severly affected his bone marrow
——————————————————————
Phone call from Thomas’s father telling Burzynski doctors thinking they won’t do anything else for him and Thomas will die within a week because of severe suppression of bone marrow
——————————————————————
Burzynski encouraged father to do whatever possible because such patients may turn around
——————————————————————
He turned around
——————————————————————
About month or two later developed 15 tumors in brain and spinal cord
——————————————————————
When close to death, nothing available, FDA called and allowed Burzynski to treat Thomas
——————————————————————
Treated Thomas
——————————————————————
Survived 6 months
——————————————————————
Tumors had substantially decreased
——————————————————————
11/2001 – ultimately died from pneumonia
——————————————————————
Perhaps professor and chairman of oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, Jan Buckner, professor and head of the division of bioethics at NYU Langone Medical Center, Arthur Caplan, chair of the Children’s Oncology Group, an NCI-supported research network that conducts clinical trials in pediatric cancer, pediatric oncologist and professor of pediatrics and pharmacology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Peter Adamson, David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., FACS, a/k/a GorskGeek, and “Orac”, ALL think that the 15 tumors Thomas Navarro had in his brain and spinal cord, which had substantially decreased under Burzynski’s antineoplaston therapy, were because of Pseudoprogression a/k/a Pseudo-Progression (psPD) and / or pseudoresponse, caused by
chemotherapy ?

Is this what they mean by:

“In reality, the tumor was just returning to its previous size” ?
======================================
Dustin Kunnari [3]
——————————————————————
At 2 ½ years old, Dustin Kunnari had brain surgery
——————————————————————
Surgery removed only 75% of tumor
——————————————————————
Dustin’s parents, Mariann and Jack, were told Dustin would only live 6 months
——————————————————————
Chemotherapy and radiation may extend life slightly, but at very high cost in quality of life with very serious side effects
——————————————————————
Mariann and Jack decided to look into alternatives
——————————————————————
Found out about Antineoplastons
——————————————————————
After only 6 weeks of intravenous treatment, MRI showed he was cancer free
——————————————————————
One year later another tumor appeared on MRI
——————————————————————
By this time Dr. Burzynski had developed more concentrated form of Antineoplastons
——————————————————————
After 5 months tumor was gone
——————————————————————
remained cancer free ever since
——————————————————————
Age 7 – taken off Antineoplastons
——————————————————————
To further complicate matters, oncologist kept threatening parents with a court proceeding to take Dustin away and force him to take Chemotherapy/Radiation treatment
——————————————————————
This continued for a year, even after success with Antineoplastons
——————————————————————
Age 12 at time of 12/2002 interview
——————————————————————
Perhaps professor and chairman of oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, Jan Buckner, professor and head of the division of bioethics at NYU Langone Medical Center, Arthur Caplan, chair of the Children’s Oncology Group, an NCI-supported research network that conducts clinical trials in pediatric cancer, pediatric oncologist and professor of pediatrics and pharmacology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Peter Adamson, David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., FACS, a/k/a GorskGeek, and “Orac”, ALL think that the tumor David Kunnari had, which disappeared under Burzynski’s antineoplaston therapy, were because of Pseudoprogression a/k/a Pseudo-Progression (psPD) and / or pseudoresponse, caused by
surgery ?

Is this what they mean by:

“In reality, the tumor was just returning to its previous size” ?
======================================
Paul Leverett [3]
——————————————————————
5/1999 – diagnosed with glioblastoma multiforme grade 4 brain stem tumor
——————————————————————
Prognosis was would probably be dead before end of 1999
——————————————————————
Orthodox medicine gave him no hope of survival
——————————————————————
Given maximum amount of radiation was capable of receiving
——————————————————————
Slowed tumors growth slightly, but didn’t alter prospects for survival at all
——————————————————————
After research on Internet learned about Dr. Burzynski’s Antineoplastons
——————————————————————
9/1999 – began taking Antineoplastons intravenously, administered by wife Jennie
——————————————————————
After 6 weeks tumor had grown by only 2 %, Glioblastoma’s normally double in size every 2 weeks
——————————————————————
12/2000 – PET scan confirmed complete remission
——————————————————————
Stayed on Antineoplastonsuntil 8/2001 to ensure tumor wouldn’t reoccur
——————————————————————
Just under 20% tumor necrosis remaining in brain stem, which is probably scar tissue
——————————————————————
Oncologist (at MD Anderson, Houston) initially wanted to show scan’s to his hospitals (MD Anderson) tumor review board
——————————————————————
for whaever reason, refused further contact and didn’t go ahead with it
——————————————————————
Perhaps professor and chairman of oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, Jan Buckner, professor and head of the division of bioethics at NYU Langone Medical Center, Arthur Caplan, chair of the Children’s Oncology Group, an NCI-supported research network that conducts clinical trials in pediatric cancer, pediatric oncologist and professor of pediatrics and pharmacology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Peter Adamson, David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., FACS, a/k/a GorskGeek, and “Orac”, ALL think that the glioblastoma multiforme grade 4 brain stem tumor Paul Leverett had, which disappeared under Burzynski’s antineoplaston therapy, were because of Pseudoprogression a/k/a Pseudo-Progression (psPD) and / or pseudoresponse, caused by radiation ?

Is this what they mean by:

“In reality, the tumor was just returning to its previous size” ?
======================================
Crystin Schiff [3]
—————————————————————–
Ric and Paula Schiff about torture their daughter Crystin had to endure during chemotherapy/radiation treatment
—————————————————————–
Diagnosed with perhaps most malignant tumor known, rhabdoid tumor of the brain
—————————————————————–
Historically, there was no case of such a tumor ever having long response to chemotherapy or radiation therapy
—————————————————————–
Received extremely heavy doses of radiation therapy and chemotherapy, because nobody expected she would live longer than year or so
—————————————————————–
Was terribly damaged with this
—————————————————————–
Responded very well to Antineoplastons
—————————————————————–
Complete response
——————————————————————
Died from pneumonia
——————————————————————
Immune system was wiped out, so when she aspirated some food, she died from it
—————————————————————–
Autopsy revealed didn’t have any sign of malignancy
—————————————————————–
Particularly despicable story, because when Ric Schiff asked Dr. Michael Prados, then head of neuro-oncology at University of California at San Francisco Medical Center (UCSF), if he knew of any other treatment besides chemotherapy/radiation for Crystin’s
brain tumor, Prados replied in the negative

But a few years before, he had sent you 14 letters documenting effectiveness of Antineoplastons on Jeff Keller, another patient with brain cancer

Is this true?

Yes, Jeff Keller had extremely malignant brain tumor

had high-grade glioma of the brain; failed radiation therapy and additional treatments

responded extremely well to our treatment

was one of patients whose case was presented to NCI

there was no doubt about his response

Dr. Prados knew about it

If he was dealing with hopeless tumor like Crystin Schiff, why didn’t he call us?

Do you know why Prados did not tell them about Keller’s success with your treatment?

It’s hard for me to tell

It happens that Dr. Prados and Dr. Friedman, who became boss of FDA, came from same medical school

they work closely together, and perhaps there is something to do with general action against us

It would be inconvenient for Dr. Prados to say that treatment works if FDA was trying to get rid of us and when his friend was Commissioner of FDA at that time

Perhaps that’s the connection….
—————————————————————–
Perhaps professor and chairman of oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, Jan Buckner, professor and head of the division of bioethics at NYU Langone Medical Center, Arthur Caplan, chair of the Children’s Oncology Group, an NCI-supported research network that conducts clinical trials in pediatric cancer, pediatric oncologist and professor of pediatrics and pharmacology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Peter Adamson, David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., FACS, a/k/a GorskGeek, and “Orac”, ALL think that the rhabdoid tumor of the brain Crystin Schiff had, which disappeared under Burzynski’s antineoplaston therapy, were because of Pseudoprogression a/k/a Pseudo-Progression (psPD) and / or pseudoresponse, caused by chemo and radiation ?

Is this what they mean by:

“In reality, the tumor was just returning to its previous size” ?
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – 11/15/2013 – Stanislaw Burzynski in USA Today: Abuse of clinical trials and patients versus the ineffectiveness of the FDA and Texas Medical Board (Getting Worse is Getting Better):
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/11/15/stanislaw-burzynski-in-usa-today-abuse-of-clinical-trials-and-patients-versus-the-ineffectiveness-of-the-fda-and-texas-medical-board/
=====================================
[2] – 11/11/2013 – “The Amazing Meeting” (I don’t think it means, what you think it says it means): 2 Intellectually and Ethically Challenged Individuals, Twaddle at TAM 2013:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/www-amazingmeeting-com-www-randi-org-lanyrd-com2013tam-forums-randi-orgforumdisplay-php/
======================================
[3] – 12/2012 – Interview with Dr. Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D. Biochemistry (12/2002):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/12/httpwww-cancerinform-orgaburzinterview-html/
======================================
[4] – 8/29/2013 – Burzynski Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Links:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/29/burzynski-securities-and-exchange-commission-sec-links/
======================================
[5] – 8/13/2013 – Does David H. “Orac” Gorski, M.D., Ph.D, really CARE about Breast Cancer patients?:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/does-david-h-orac-gorski-m-d-ph-d-really-care-about-breast-cancer-patients/
======================================

Critiquing: Doctor accused of selling false hope to families (USA TODAY NEWS, NATION, Liz Szabo, USA TODAY)

I gave Liz Szabo and USA TODAY the chance to act like a Spike Lee joint and “Do the Right Thing”, the same day their article came out [1]

I gave them the opportunity to prove that their article was a legitimate piece of journalism with some semblance of integrity, and NOT just akin to one of “The Skeptics™ phoned-in “rubber-stamped” yellow journalism hit pieces

Instead, it seems that Liz Szabo and / or USA TODAY decided to act as if they had rolled a Spike Lee joint

I sent an e-mail with 2 editorial corrections, and only one (correcting Lisa Merritt’s comment
link from taking the reader to the 1999 Mayo Clinic report instead of to her comments), was corrected [2]

The 2nd correction which they #FAILED to do, earns them well deserved INSOLENCE
——————————————————————
The article claims:
——————————————————————
“Burzynski, 70, calls his drugs “antineoplastons” and says he has given them to more than 8,000 patients since 1977.”
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
However, if you select the “8,000 patients” link, the referenced page does NOT indicate that at all [2]
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
It advises:
——————————————————————
“That same year, Dr. Burzynski founded his clinic in Houston where he’s since treated over 8,000 patients.” [3]
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
Nowhere does it indicate that he “treated 8,000 patients” with antineoplastons
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
The question that Liz Szabo and USA TODAY should answer, is:

1. Who is your “fact-checker”, and
2. are they smarter than a 5th grader ?
——————————————————————
In fact, Burzynski’s 2002 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing advises:

” … in 1997, his medical practice was expanded to include traditional cancer treatment options such as chemotherapy, gene targeted therapy, immunotherapy and hormonal therapy in response to FDA requirements that cancer patients utilize more traditional cancer treatment options in order to be eligible to participate in the Company’s Antineoplaston clinical trials” [4]
——————————————————————
The article continues:
——————————————————————
“Individual success stories can be misleading, said Arthur Caplan, a professor and head of the division of bioethics at NYU Langone Medical Center”
——————————————————————
The question Arthur Caplan should be asking is:

Why has the United States Food and Drug Administration required Burzynski’s clinical trial patients to fail conventional therapies; such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation, BEFORE they are allowed to be treated with antineoplaston therapy ?

If the F.D.A. did NOT impose these restrictions upon Burzynski’s clinical trials, then the question Arthur Caplan raises would be moot
——————————————————————
The article quotes Dr. Jan Buckner as saying:
——————————————————————
“When I hear a story that is way out of the norm, the first question I ask is,

‘OK, is the diagnosis even correct?‘ ”

“Buckner said”

“If the diagnosis wasn’t right to start with, it doesn’t matter what the treatment was.”

“Brain tumors are notoriously difficult to diagnose, Buckner says”

“When dealing with rare brain cancer, doctors may disagree about how to interpret imaging results up to 40% of the time”
——————————————————————
I wonder if Dr. Jan Buckner would agree with David Gorski; who is a BREAST cancer oncology specialist, and NOT a BRAIN cancer oncology specialist, who has the presumptiveness to speculate that 3 different medical opinions could have misdiagnosed Tori Moreno in August 1998; who was diagnosed with a very large tumor, about 3 inches in the largest diameter and located in the brain stem, which was too risky for surgery, and about which her parents were told by ALL 3, that Tori’s brain cancer was fatal and, she would die in a few days or at the most, 2-6 weeks, and that there was nothing that could be done, and was finally put on Burzynski’s antineoplaston therapy in October, when she was about 3 ½ months old, and in such condition that they were afraid that she might die at any time, David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., FACS; who claims, “I do know cancer science” , has the audacity, because of his “book learnin'” has the temerity to postulate his “science-based medicine theory” that Miller’s Children at Long Beach Memorial misdiagnosed Tori Moreno’s inoperable stage 4 BSG

David Gorski has the gall to profer that City of Hope misdiagnosed Tori Moreno’s inoperable stage 4 brain stem glioma

David Gorski has the chutzpah to pontificate that Dr. Fred Epstein in New York misdiagnosed Tori Moreno’s inoperable stage IV brainstem glioma [5]
——————————————————————
The article then quotes Peter Adamson, chair of the Children’s Oncology Group:
——————————————————————
“But these therapies may have delayed benefits, taking weeks or months to shrink a tumor“

“So patients treated by Burzynski may credit him for their progress, just because he was the last doctor to treat them, says Peter Adamson, chair of the Children’s Oncology Group, an NCI-supported research network that conducts clinical trials in pediatric cancer“

“Conventional cancer treatment can also cause tumors to swell temporarily, due to inflammation“

“A patient who isn’t familiar with this phenomenon may assume her tumor is growing“

“When that swelling subsides, patients may assume it’s because of Burzynski, Adamson says”
——————————————————————
This is laughable

In support of this “phenomenon” , the article provides a link to a Canadian web-site [6]

The site posits:
——————————————————————
“RT/TMZ is now widely practiced and the standard of care for appropriately selected patients, we are learning more about the consequences of RT/TMZ”

“One phenomena, termed Pseudo-Progression (psPD)…”
——————————————————————
The problem is that this only applies to “Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM)”, and the article provides NO proof whatsoever, that any of Burzynski’s “Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM)” patients have taken “RT/TMZ”
——————————————————————
Additionally, the site cites the reference as:

Sanghera, Perry, Sahgal, et al., “Sunnybrook Health Sciences Odette Cancer Centre” (in press, Canadian Journal of Neuroscience)

(“In press” refers to journal articles which have been accepted for publication, but have not yet been published)

However, the journal article in question was published 1/2010, so it has NOT been “in press” for over 3 years and 7 months [7]

Get your act together, aye, Canada !
——————————————————————
The article rants and raves on and on about FDA inspection reports from as far back as 1998, but at least they did quote Richard A. Jaffe:

“In Burzynski’s defense, Jaffe notes that inspection reports represent preliminary findings”

“The FDA has not yet issued final conclusions”
——————————————————————
The article posts this ridiculous claim:
——————————————————————
“Yet the National Cancer Institute says there is no evidence that Burzynski has cured a single patient, or even helped one live longer“
——————————————————————
That’s NOT what this seems to suggest [8]
——————————————————————
Then the article quotes pediatric oncologist Peter Adamson, a professor of pediatrics and pharmacology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, in what will no doubt soon be known as a “classic”:
——————————————————————
“He’s a snake oil salesman,” says pediatric oncologist Peter Adamson, a professor of pediatrics and pharmacology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia”
——————————————————————
All I’d like to know is, which rock did this clown crawl out from under ?

Dr. Adamson, please advise which “snake oil” has been granted Orphan Drug Designation (“ODD”) from the United States Food and Drug Administration [9], and which “snake oil” has been approved for, and used in, phase III clinical trials ? [10]
——————————————————————
Q: Is it, it the phase 2 trial is finished ?

A: “Mhmm”

Q: but they’re still accepting people ?

A: “Yeah”

Q: on more like a special ?

A: “Special basis, and, um, sometimes compassionate grounds“

A: “(compassion exception)”

A: “Uh, exceptions“

Q: That’s normal ?

A: “Yes”
“So”

A: “(Yes I guess it is a funding issue ?)”

Q: Right

A: “(Like FDA, during the 2nd phase of clinical trials they found the data to be, real, real one, and they gave him the ok to go for 3rd phase of clinical trials, but just to go through this process you would probably need $100,000)”
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
Oh, wait !!

Dr. Adamson, when you say “snake oil”, I take it you are referring to the low-dose chemotherapy that Burzynski uses ?

Dr. Adamson, do you know what a “hack” is ?
——————————————————————
In regards to the Merritt’s, the article has:
——————————————————————
“The couple say that Burzynski misled them about the type of treatment that would be offered, as well as the cost”

My questions about the Merritt’s are:

1. Where is their complaint to the Texas Medical Board ?

2. Where is their lawsuit ? Couldn’t they find an attorney to take their case pro bono ?
——————————————————————
The article continues:
——————————————————————
“Yet even Jaffe has acknowledged that the trial — now in its 17th year — was more about politics than science”

“In his 2008 memoirs, Galileo’s Lawyer, Jaffe called it “a joke.””

“”It was all an artifice, a vehicle we and the FDA created to legally give the patients Burzynski’s treatment,” Jaffe said“
——————————————————————
What Liz Szabo and her friends at USA TODAY fail to let the readers know, is that this only applied to one trial:
——————————————————————
Burzynski’s lawyer is obviously referring to the CAN-1 clinical trial mentioned in Burzynski’s 11/25/1997 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing [11]
——————————————————————
One trial that is retrospective is CAN-1 Clinical Trial
——————————————————————
CAN-1 PHASE II STUDY OF ANTINEOPLASTONS A10 AND AS2-1 IN

PATIENTS WITH REFRACTORY MALIGNANCIES

133 patients
——————————————————————
Clinical trial of patients treated by Dr. Burzynski through 2/23/1996
——————————————————————
FDA has indicated it will not accept data generated by this trial since it was not a wholly prospective one
——————————————————————
The article continues in the same vein:
——————————————————————
“In an interview, Burzynski said developing new drugs is complex and takes time”

“Yet the FDA has approved 108 cancer drugs since Burzynski began his trial”
——————————————————————
Ms. Szabo and “pals” conveniently “forgets” to educate their audience that Burzynski was using Fleming’s One-sample multiple testing procedure for phase II clinical trials [13], which requires that if the 1st 20 patients meet certain criteria, 20 additional patients are added [14]
——————————————————————
“Well, we cannot publish until the time is right” (laughs)

Yeah

“If you would like to publish the results of, of a
10 year survival, for instance”

Mmm

“Which we have
Nobody has over 10 year survival in
malignant brain tumor, but we do, and if you like to do it right, it takes time to prepare it, and that’s what we do now
What we publish so far
We publish numerous, uh, publications which were, interim reports when we are still continuing clinical trials
Now we are preparing, a number of publications for final reports“ [15]
——————————————————————
Then Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition makes an outlandish statement, which is quoted in the article:
——————————————————————
“Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, describes the FDA’s tolerance of Burzynski as “outrageous.””

“They have put people at risk for a long time,” says Visco, an attorney and breast cancer survivor”

“That’s completely unacceptable”

“How can anyone look at these facts and believe that there is a real clinical trial going on … rather than just using the FDA and the clinical trial system to make money?”
——————————————————————
I have a suggestion for Ms. Visco

Take your hypocrisy and ask the American Cancer Society if they are still engaged in this kind of activity:

1. AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY: More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives [15]

2. National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest [16]
——————————————————————
Then, ask the American Cancer Society, why is it that 10 years ago, estimated breast cancer deaths were expected to be 39,800 (15%), and this year it was 39,620 (14%), which is ONLY 180 LESS than 10 years ago ?
——————————————————————
Estimated Breast Cancer Deaths (Women)-USA
——————————————————————
2013☝39,620 (14%)
2012👇39,510 (14%)
2011👇39,520 (15%)
2010👇39,840 (15%)
2009👇40,170 (15%)
2008☝40,480 (15%)
2007👇40,460 (15%)
2006☝40,970 (15%)
2005👇40,410 (15%)
2004☝40,110 (15%)
2003☝39,800 (15%)
2002 – 39,600 (15%)
—————————————————————–
American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures (2002-2013)
—————————————————————–
And then ask the American Cancer Society, why is it that 10 years ago, the estimated NEW breast cancer cases were expected to be 211,300 (32%), and this year it was 232,340 (29%), which is 21,340 MORE than it was 10 years ago ?
——————————————————————
Estimated New Breast Cancer (Women) – USA
——————————————————————
2013☝232,340 (29%)
2012👇226,870 (29%)
2011☝238,480 (30%)
2010☝207,090 (28%)
2009☝192,370 (27%)
2008☝182,460 (26%)
2007👇178,480 (26%)
2006☝212,920 (31%)
2005👇211,240 (32%)
2004☝215,900 (32%)
2003☝211,300 (32%)
2002_-_203,500 (31%)
—————————————————————–
American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures (2002-2013)
——————————————————————
And after that, ask Susan G. Komen how much is spent on legal action to protect her brand, compared to how much is spent on breast cancer research and prevention ?
——————————————————————
Visco, the breast cancer advocate

“I do NOT know why it took YOU so long.”
——————————————————————
The article continues with:
——————————————————————
“Yet hypernatremia is one of antineoplastons’ most common side effects, known to doctors for two decades”
——————————————————————
Yet, “The Skeptics™” refuse to discuss:
——————————————————————
2/13/2013 – The frequency, cost, and clinical outcomes of hypernatremia in patients hospitalized to a comprehensive cancer center

Over 3 month period in 2006 re 3,446 patients, most of the hypernatremia (90 %) was acquired during hospital stay [19]

Division of Internal Medicine, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

Department of General Internal Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

Division of Endocrinology, Mayo Clinic
——————————————————————
9/1999 – The changing pattern of hypernatremia in hospitalized children [20]

Department of Pediatrics, Texas Children’s Hospital, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
——————————————————————
So, after all that, my question for USA TODAY is, does Liz Szabo, Michael Stravato, Jerry Mosemak or Robert Hanashiro have a
journalism degree ?

Because if any of them do, the institution they obtained it from most be so proud of this piece of “fish wrap” you produced

Thank you, USA TODAY, for censoring my 18 comments

I guess you must be (“intellectual”) cowards

At least Forbes had the GRAPEFRUITS to post some of my comments
——————————————————————
You’ve just been served, INSOLENTLY
——————————————————————
USA TODAY, GONE TOMORROW
——————————————————————

======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – 11/15/2013 – USA TODAY NEWS, NATION
Doctor accused of selling false hope to families
Liz Szabo, USA TODAY
——————————————————————
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/15/stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-controversy/2994561/
======================================
[2] – Mayo Clinic – 1999 – report: Lisa Merritt
——————————————————————
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/816819-mayo-clinic-1999-report.html
======================================
[3] – 2012 – former Burzynski web-site screenshots, Pg 3 of 62;
——————————————————————

Click to access burzynski_fdauntitled_promo_2012.pdf

======================================
[4] – 4/26/2013 – Burzynski: 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:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/burzynski-fda-requirements-that-cancer-patients-utilize-more-traditional-cancer-treatment-options-in-order-to-be-eligible-to-participate-in-the-companys-antineoplaston-clinical-trials/
======================================
[5] – 11/14/2013 – Critiquing: Why we fight for patients (Why we fight your patience) TAM 2013, TAM2013, “The Amazing Meeting” 2013 #TAM2013 http://www.theamazingmeeting.com
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/14/tam-2013-tam2013-tam2013-the-amazing-meeting-2013-the-amazing-meeting-httptheamazingmeeting-com-httpwww-theamazingmeeting-com/
======================================
[6] – Phenomenon – Brain Tumour Foundation of Canada
——————————————————————
http://www.braintumour.ca/1649/ask-the-expert-psuedo-progression-gbm
======================================
[7] – Pseudoprogression following chemoradiotherapy for glioblastoma multiforme
Can J Neurol Sci. 2010 Jan;37(1):36-42
——————————————————————
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20169771/
======================================
[8] – 9/19/2013 – Critiquing: National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) CancerNet “fact sheet” :
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/critiquing-national-cancer-institute-nci-at-the-national-institutes-of-health-nih-cancernet/
======================================
[9] – FDA Orphan Drug Designation
——————————————————————

Click to access PressRelease_12022008_BZYR(2).pdf

======================================
[10] – 11/7/2013 – Pete Cohen chats with Sonali Patil, Ph.D., Research Scientist at The Burzynski Clinic:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/07/pete-cohen-chats-with-sonali-patil-ph-d-research-scientist-at-the-burzynski-clinic/
======================================
[11] – 7/9/2013 – Burzynski: The Original 72 Phase II Clinical Trials:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/burzynski-the-original-72-phase-ii-clinical-trials/
======================================
[12] – 8/21/2013 – Critiquing David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/critiquing-david-h-gorski-md-phd-facs-www-sciencebasedmedicine-orgeditorial-staffdavid-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
======================================
[13] – 2003 – pg. 94
——————————————————————

Click to access 960.pdf

======================================
[14] – 3/1982 – Biometrics 1982; 38: 143-51
——————————————————————
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7082756/
======================================
[15] – 11/9/2013 – Pete Cohen chats with Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski – Interview #2:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/pete-cohen-chats-with-dr-stanislaw-burzynski-interwiew-2/
======================================
[16] – AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY: More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives
——————————————————————

Click to access acs.pdf

======================================
[17] – 9/11/2013 – National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/national-cancer-institute-and-american-cancer-society-criminal-indifference-to-cancer-prevention-and-conflicts-of-interest/
—————————————————————
[18] – 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/
======================================
[19] – 4/24/2013 – Burzynski: HYPERNATREMIA:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/burzynski-hypernatremia/
======================================
[20] – 9/1999 – Pediatrics. 1999 Sep;104(3 Pt 1):435-9
——————————————————————
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10469766/
======================================

Interview with Dr. Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D. Biochemistry (12/2002)

Interview with Dr. Burzynski (M.D., Ph.D. Biochemistry)
Interviewer: Gavin Phillips ©
Distributed 12.05.03

Anyone may post this interview to their website, as long as it remains
unaltered and freely available. Please place a link back to this webpage.

You may click here to download the PDF version of my interview and
save it to your computer. Please help distribute it. Thank you. Gavin.

Click here to download the free Adobe Reader if you do
not already have it on your computer.

This telephone interview with Dr. Burzynski was held in December 2002. The purpose of the interview is to inform people about Dr. Burzynski’s cancer treatment, Antineoplastons. It will be circulated for free on the Internet. I have no affiliations with Dr. Burzynski either personally or professionally.

Hello Dr. Burzynski. I would like to thank you for taking the time to inform people about your cancer treatment Antineoplastons, and your experiences in the area of cancer over the last 25 years.

Is it true that you were the youngest person in Poland in the 20th century to earn two advanced degrees, an M.D. (Medical Doctor) and Ph.D. in biochemistry at only 24?

I’m not sure if I was the youngest, I was among the youngest. In Poland, its 15 years average (Gavin. For a Ph.D.) after you receive an M.D.

What motivated you to come to the United States? When did you arrive here?

Well basically freedom. You see, I could easily stay in Poland. I was a prominent student, one of the best they ever had in medical school and certainly if I would become a member of the Communist Party I would accomplish a lot in Poland. But I didn’t want to be a Communist and after I declared, “forget it, I’m not going to be a Communist”, they persecuted me. So, practically, it would not be possible for me to do any research in Poland. I arrived in the United States on the 4th of September 1970.

You began working at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston?

I was not employed for 6 weeks, then I got the appointment at Baylor in the position of research assistant. A couple of years later I became Assistant Professor.

I have read that your cancer research was motivated by your observation of a cancer patient in Poland that was missing a particular peptide in their blood, is this correct?

Well Yes. First I discovered some peptide fractions in blood and then I was trying to determine their significance. This means that I was screening the blood samples from people who suffer from various illnesses, among them cancer patients. I found some remarkable changes in concentration of these Peptides in cancer patients. Basically there was a great deficiency of these Peptide fractions in the blood of cancer patients.

What are peptides and how did your research develop from there to developing Antineoplastons?

Peptides are chains of Amino Acids, so if you put together 2 Amino Acids, you have a Peptide.

You have said, “Cancer is really a disease of cells that are not programmed correctly. Antineoplastons simply reprogram them so that they behave normally again.”

They do, but we are not really interested in making normal cells out of cancer cells. What we are interested in is correcting one basic difference between cancer cells and normal cells, and this is the mortality of normal cells and the immortality of cancer cells. Cancer cells are immortal. And if you change them into mortal cells again they will die and the tumor will disappear.

I read a humorous part in Daniel Haley’s chapter about you in his book, “Politics in Medicine.” He says that initially you derived Antineoplastons from your friends blood, but had to change because your friends stopped coming around, is that correct?

Certainly it was difficult to obtain a lot of blood for the research. It was a necessity to look for a source that is widely available. I realized from the very beginning that once I use urine, my critics will use this against me; try to just smear me, “That’s the doctor who is using urine to treat cancer.” But there was no other way to do it.

There are plenty of ignorant remarks about your treatment because it used to be derived from human urine. The process you use now does not involve collecting human urine. Please describe the complete process you use.

Ever since 1980, we are using synthetic analogues of Antineoplastons, made in a state-of-the art biomedical manufacturing facility. These have nothing to do with urine or blood.

Would you describe Antineoplastons as natural?

They are natural of course, they exist in our body.

Your treatment does require a strong commitment from your patients as they must be infused with Antineoplastons for many weeks or months, is that correct?

But most of our patients are taking oral formulations. I would say that perhaps 15% of our patients are taking intravenous infusions of Antineoplastons; the rest take capsules or tablets.

The patients who have the most advanced type of cancer will require heavy dosages. There is a limitation of how much medicine you can take by mouth. Fifty or sixty tablets a day, that’s pretty much all you can take by mouth. But if you give intravenous infusion you can deliver the equivalent of 3,000 tablets a day.

You went into private practice in 1977. How was this funded?

Well, I started private practice in 1973. It was not necessary for me to have any funding, because I joined with other physicians.

Is it true that Dr. Mask at a hospital in Jacksboro, Texas ran your first human clinical trial? What types of cancers did you treat? What were the results of these trials?

I would not call it a clinical trial, because only two patients received initial treatment. They were very advanced, close to death and unfortunately, both of them died. But these cases were not lost because we found we can administer Antineoplastons without having bad side effects.

What is the general side effect experienced by your patients when using Antineoplastons? Does it damage the immune system as chemotherapy does?

We are not talking about one medicine; we tried 12 different pharmaceutical formulations. Basically it depends what formulation we use, but when we give them orally, we see practically no side effects at all. Patients may develop skin rash, which may last for a day or two.

But, when we give large dosages intravenously, we have to watch fluid balance…and electrolyte balance. We don’t see any delayed toxicity once the treatment stops. Everything practically goes back to normal within say a day or two. It does not even come close to the adverse reactions that you experience with chemotherapy.

What is the cost today for a patient using your treatment in a pill form and do insurance companies pay for it? *

Well basically, we do not charge patients for medicines, Antineoplastons are given free of charge. What we are charging for are supplies, and we are charging for standard services such as office visits, nursing services, Lab tests, consultation, evaluation etc. And these services are priced the same way as the average medical services, and they are covered by the insurance.

*(Gavin. Insurance companies will rarely pay for Antineoplastons, which is considered an experimental treatment. It also depends on the type of insurance plan someone may be on.)

So if a patient were using the pills, what would it normally cost per month.

About $2,000 a month.

Antineoplastons is most effective against brain cancer, is that correct?

Well, it’s not really correct. Because brain tumors are very difficult to treat, we concentrate our efforts on the toughest type of cancers. Out of our clinical trials, we have eight that came to the final point, which means they proved that there is some efficacy, and six of these are in various types of brain tumors. But there is another clinical trial, which deals with advanced colon cancer, which also proved efficacy and another one with liver cancer. But we still need to wait a little longer to have a larger number of patients treated and then statistically find out if this is going to work.

Basically the treatment works when we have involvement of the gene, which can be activated by Antineoplastons, and such genes, like gene p 53, are involved in 50% of all cancers. The treatment turns on gene p 53. So it has more to do with what kind of gene the patient has in his cancer cell, rather than the type of cancer.

Is there a special diet to follow when using your treatment?

Yes, since we are expecting there may be some changes in minerals, we usually emphasize a diet that is relatively low in sodium. We treat every patient individually. Every patient has a consultation with a dietary expert who tries to individualize his diet

Is your treatment being used in any other countries?

Yes, we have people coming to us from all over the world. I think we can probably count easily 70 to a 100 countries from which people are coming. But the main effort is now in Japan, outside the US. In Japan there are 2 clinical trials being conducted by Japanese doctors. Also, a group of doctors in Mexico obtained approval from the FDA and Mexican government to do clinical trials.

Now I have several related questions about brain cancer in children.

Dustin Kunnari and Dr. Burzynski. Dustin is one of Dr. Burzynski’s great success stories.

Dustin had brain surgery at 2 ½ years old. The surgery removed only 75% of the tumor.

Dustin’s parents, Mariann and Jack, were told that Dustin would only live for 6 months. Chemotherapy and radiation may extend Dustin’s life slightly, but at a very high cost in quality of life with very serious side effects.

Mariann and Jack decided to look into alternatives. They found out about Antineoplastons and after only 6 weeks of intravenous treatment, Dustin’s MRI showed he was cancer free.

One year later another tumor appeared on the MRI. By this time Dr. Burzynski had developed a more concentrated form of Antineoplastons. After 5 months the tumor was gone. Dustin has remained cancer free ever since and was taken off Antineoplastons when he was 7. Dustin is 12 today.

About how many children suffer from brain cancer in the US each year?

The statistics are available for 1999. The new cases of brain tumors in children were counted as 2,200. Now around 3,000, I would say.

Approximately what percentage of children is still alive after 5 years using orthodox treatments for brain cancer?

It depends on the type of tumor and it’s location, some of the toughest are those that are located in the brain stem. Up to 5 years, you have practically no survival when you use the best treatment available, which is radiation therapy. Chemotherapy usually doesn’t work for such patients. After 2 years, 7 % survival. After 5 years, practically none.

Dustin, after brain surgery.

To further complicate matters, Dustin’s oncologist kept threatening his parents with a court proceeding to take Dustin away and force him to take Chemotherapy/Radiation treatment.

This continued for a year, even after Dustin’s success with Antineoplastons.

Please see the Burzynski Patients web site for more information,
http:// http://www.burzynskipatientgroup.org

You may also e-mail Mary Jo Siegel, the lady who runs the web site. Mary is also a cancer survivor using Antineoplastons.
maryjo@siegel.net

Is it correct to say you have had very good results when treating brain cancer in children?

Yes we have. I gave you the example of the toughest, which is located in the brain stem. We get about 40% survival rates after two years. After 5 years at the moment we have about 20% survival rate. The reason is that most of the patients who come to us, have received prior heavy radiation therapy, or chemotherapy. They usually die from complications from these treatments. Those who survive the longest are patients who previously did not receive radiation therapy or chemotherapy. The longest survivor in this category is now reaching 15 years from the time of diagnosis; and she’s in perfect health.

With the more common variety, which is aciotoma located outside the brain stem, we get much, much better. We have 75% of patients who are objectively responding to the treatment. This means that the tumor will disappear completely or will be reduced by more than 50%.

This is another strong point. It’s extremely important. Children are usually damaged for life after radiation therapy, when we can avoid it and bring them back to life.

What criteria must parents of children with brain cancer meet before being able to have their children treated by you?

Well, practically all of these brain tumors must be inoperable. This means that it’s not possible to remove them with surgery. Except for one category, they should have advanced disease. The tumor should have the size of more than 5 mm in diameter and be located in a place that cannot be operated upon.

There is one category of these tumors, medulloblastoma, where the FDA requires that the patients would receive prior standard treatment and fail before we can accept them. In the rest of these children we can accept them without failure of prior treatment.

Roy , a more recent patient of Dr. Burzynski’s.

Please see the Burzynski Patients web site for more information,
http:// http://www.burzynskipatientgroup.org

You may also e-mail Mary Jo Siegel, the lady who runs the web site. Mary is also a cancer survivor using Antineoplastons.
maryjo@siegel.net

Let us talk a little about some of your most successful stories using Antineoplastons with children. Probably the most remarkable case is that of Tori Moreno . In August 1998 Tori was diagnosed with a stage 4 brainstem glioma that was inoperable. Her parents were told she would die in a few days or at the most, a few weeks. When did you start treating her?

Tori had Stage 4 brain stem glioma. The tumor was too risky for surgery. She was diagnosed shortly after her birth. The tumor was very large, about 3 inches in the largest diameter and located in the brain stem. Her parents consulted the best centers in the country and they were told there was nothing to be done. So finally she was brought to us, when she was about 3 ½ months old. This was in October 5 years ago. She was in such condition that we were afraid that she might die at any time. Fortunately she responded, and about 5 months later we determined that she obtained a complete response, which means complete disappearance of active tumor by
MRI criteria. She is a perfectly healthy child and tumor free. She still takes small dosages of capsules of Antineoplastons, but we will discontinue this shortly.

Tori Moreno 9.28.98. Temporarily enlarged due to taking Decadron.

Tori’s parents were told there was nothing that could be done for her and she would be dead in a few weeks.

Tori is alive and well today thanks to Antineoplastons. See photo below.

At the end of this interview, there is a short interview with Kim Moreno, Tori’s mother.

Kim Moreno has set-up a Yahoo e-mail account to answer peoples cancer related questions.
kimmoreno5@yahoo.com

And today she is over 5 years old?

Yes, she’s 5 years old and living a pretty much normal life.

Tori 22.10.02. A perfectly healthy child. Orthodox treatment consists of high does of radiation therapy and possibly toxic chemotherapy as well. Most of the children are dead in a few years. The ones that survive suffer from permanent retardation, along with other serious side effects from the radiation.

Please do not forget about the interview with Kim Moreno, Tori’s mother, at the end of this interview.

But mainstream medicine has been trying to kill the cancer cell using chemotherapy and radiation, is that correct?

That’s right, yes.

Chemotherapy and radiation cannot differentiate between healthy and cancerous cells?

They can differentiate to some point, but basically, this difference is very small, so ultimately, the normal cells will be killed.

Is that why they have such a terrible effect on the immune system?

That’s right, not only the immune system, but also many other systems in the body. Practically, the treatment is destroying healthy parts of the body.

Chemotherapy and radiation also cause cancer, don’t they?

Yes. For instance right now we see a lot of patients who in childhood were successfully treated for leukemia or for Hodgkin’s disease. Then they develop cancer that is practically incurable, like lung cancer, breast cancers; I even encountered a patient in my practice that developed three different types of cancers, and was only 28 years of age. First she was treated for Hodgkin’s Disease, then she developed bone cancer in the places which were radiated for Hodgkin’s Disease, and then she developed breast cancer after that; it’s really horrible. So there is increased incidence of secondary cancers in patients who were treated previously with chemotherapy and radiation.

Shontelle Huron. In remission for several years after using Antineoplastons.

Please see the Burzynski Patients web site for more information,
http:// http://www.burzynskipatientgroup.org

You may also e-mail Mary Jo Siegel, the lady who runs the web site. Mary is also a cancer survivor using Antineoplastons. maryjo@siegel.net

Ric and Paula Schiff write about the torture their daughter Crystin had to endure during chemotherapy/radiation treatment.

Crystin was diagnosed with perhaps the most malignant tumor known, which is a rhabdoid tumor of the brain. Of course, historically, there was no case of such a tumor ever having a long response to chemotherapy or radiation therapy. She received extremely heavy does of radiation therapy and chemotherapy, because nobody expected that she would live longer than a year or so. So unfortunately she was terribly damaged with this. She responded very well to Antineoplastons. We put her in complete response. But unfortunately she died from pneumonia. Her immune system was wiped out, so when she aspirated some food, she died from it. The autopsy revealed that she didn’t have any sign of malignancy.

But there are also likely permanent severe health concerns related to taking chemotherapy and radiation.

In young children there is permanent damage to the brain. Unfortunately some oncologists who are dealing with such cases are really cruel to the parents, because they are saying, “well, your child will survive, but you are going to have a jolly idiot for the rest of your life.”

Is it true that if parents refuse chemotherapy/radiation treatment for their children the hospital, via the courts, could have the child removed from the parents care and forced to take chemotherapy/radiation treatment?

Yes, unfortunately in some States, the law may require taking children away from the custody of the parents to send them to such treatments.

Jared Wadman. In remission for several years after using Antineoplastons.

Please see the Burzynski Patients web site for more information,
http:// http://www.burzynskipatientgroup.org

You may also e-mail Mary Jo Siegel, the lady who runs the web site. Mary is also a cancer survivor using Antineoplastons.
maryjo@siegel.net

Isn’t this what happened to Donna and Jim Navarro when they chose your treatment over orthodox treatments?

That is correct. Thomas Navarro was diagnosed with medulloblastoma. He was operated on and the tumor was removed. Then he was scheduled for radiation therapy. Since he was only 4 years old, the parents knew that he’d be damaged by radiation therapy. Nobody at his age survives this type of tumor anyway after radiation therapy. So that’s why they decided to come to our clinic. Unfortunately I could not treat him because FDA requires failure of radiation therapy for such patients.

And tragically he died in November 2001.

What happened was, the parents decided not to take any treatment. We asked the FDA several times to allow administration of Antineoplastons, because we have already had successful treatments for some other children without any prior radiation. Then ultimately he developed numerous tumors in May the following year. Then we suggested to the parents of Thomas, that if they are not going to take our treatment, they should go for at least chemotherapy. They went for chemotherapy to one of the best centers in the country, to Beth Israel Hospital in New York. The chemotherapy was successful, but he almost died from it. It severely affected his bone marrow. I remember a phone call from Thomas’s father telling me that the doctors are thinking that they won’t do anything else for him and that Thomas will die within a week because of severe suppression of bone marrow.

But I encouraged his father to do whatever is possible because such patients may turn around. Fortunately he turned around, but about a month or two later he developed 15 tumors in the brain and the spinal cord. Then, when he was close to death, when nothing was available for him, the FDA called us and told us now we can treat Thomas. When we treated Thomas he survived 6 months, and the tumors had substantially decreased, but ultimately he died from pneumonia.

Is it accurate to say that the initial orthodox treatment for brain cancer is surgery to remove the tumor?

If the tumor is located in the proper part of the brain. For some locations it is out of the question. But, you are right, that is the first step.

Does surgery alone ever cure a patient with brain cancer?

Well, some cases, with benign brain tumors, when the tumor can be completely dissected, yes, it’s possible. But in most cases it’s not possible.

How much of a risk does surgery present regarding spreading the cancer more quickly and other complications?

Well, not so much regarding spreading the cancer more quickly in the case of brain tumors. Such a spread may happen only with a small percentage of brain tumors that have the highest aggressiveness. But for most of the patients the tumor is not going to spread just because of surgery. Certainly surgery may damage the brain and patients may even die during the surgery. It’s not the ideal thing to do of course because you are removing the tumor and you are removing a healthy part of the brain at the same time. The patient may be permanently damaged by such procedures.

Would you warn against rushing into surgery in light of how effective your treatment is? Would you most times recommend trying your treatment first?

We really would like to know what we are dealing with. This means that we would like to have at least a biopsy; if by chance it’s not going to create sufficient risk for the patient. If the tumor was located in such a place in the brain where surgery is possible, then certainly we could try to remove the tumor. But I think it would be best if we can treat the patient with brain intact and get rid of the tumor completely, because then we risk the least damage possible.

Now I will turn my attention to your legal battles with the FDA. They began in 1983 when they sued you in civil court, is this correct?

In 1983, that was the first court battle with the FDA. The FDA sued us. It took about 6 weeks in court and again, we won.

Then there was an enormous raid by the FDA at your offices on July 17, 1985. What was the reason for this raid?

We were never given a reason. I think there was a concentrated action against a few alternative medicine centers because at the same time there were similar actions in the Bahamas and in some other places.

In the four court cases the FDA has brought against you, have any of your patients testified against you?

Well, on their own will, nobody testified against us. But the FDA encouraged some of our patients, and threatened them in various ways. They forced them to come to the witness stand. But really, once they were on the witness stand they behaved more like our witnesses, not FDA witnesses.

According to Daniel Haley, after the FDA lost its last court case against you in 1997, Congressman Richard Burr said it was “one of the worst abuses of the criminal justice system”. Did Burr ever speak to you about it?

Yes, we talk with Congressman Burr. I believe he is right, because certainly there was no reason for such massive action on the part of the FDA. They knew that the treatment works; that the treatment helps patients, that the patients will die if they win, so they should not do it. All of this was with the taxpayer’s money.

So the FDA has wasted many millions of taxpayer dollars trying to convict you on false charges of transporting Antineoplastons across State lines. What was the motivation for this vendetta?

Well, it’s hard to tell, because it was never properly investigated; why they did it. But, we have some leads. For instance, on one side you have a large pharmaceutical company, which was very interested in getting hold of our patents; this is Elan Pharmaceutical. It happened that I treated successfully a close relative to the CEO of Elan. Elan became very interested in what we have. They came close to signing a final license agreement. But after they learned what we have, they decided to withdraw and then suddenly the FDA and NCI gave their full support to Elan, to do clinical trials with one of the ingredients of Antineoplastons, phenylacetate.

This was a large pharmaceutical company that was trying to appropriate my invention. On the other hand, within the FDA and NCI you have had people who were working closely with this company. For instance Mary Pendergast, who was responsible for the legal action against us, became Vice President of Elan. Also Doctor Michael Friedman, who was initially in charge of NCI cancer research, and who knew that our treatment works, later became commissioner of FDA and he did whatever he could to put us out of business. Not only that, but to simply destroy me.

On the other hand, suddenly the government decided to file for the patents, which claimed the same thing that our patents did. Never in the history of the United States do you have the issuance of two patents for the same invention. It was really a breach of patent procedure. The patent office allowed them to patent something I invented, and which I patented. And dishonest scientist Dr. Dvorit Samid, who initially worked for us, was receiving funds from us and finally went for the higher bidder (Elan).

So you have a lot of leads, which indicate that there was something between the government, dishonest scientists like Dvorit Samid and the large pharmaceutical company, Elan. And it was in best interests for them to get rid of me, destroy me, so they could appropriate my discoveries and benefit from that.

When did you initially apply for your Investigational New Drug (IND)?

We applied in May 1983.

When did you receive it?

Well, it took an extremely long time. Ultimately most of our clinical trials began in 1996, a long time after that. FDA did not allow us to proceed with clinical trials for an extremely long time. Please click here to read the
conclusion of this interview

E-mail this sites address to someone and help spread the word

Return to the top of the page

E-mail me: cancerinfo11@yahoo.com
======================================

Anyone may post this interview to their website, as long as it remains
unaltered and freely available. Please place a link back to this webpage.

The downloadable PDF version of my interview will be
posted here very soon. Thank you. Gavin.

Click here to download the free Adobe Reader if you do
not already have it on your computer.

Tony Tondelli. In remission for several years after using Antineoplastons.

Please see the Burzynski Patients web site for more information,
http:// http://www.burzynskipatientgroup.org

You may also e-mail Mary Jo Siegel, the lady who runs the web site. Mary is also a cancer survivor using Antineoplastons.
maryjo@siegel.net

It is important for everyone to understand the economics of the drug industry. I have heard that the cost today for bringing a drug to market is upwards of 500 million and takes about 12 years, is that true?

Yes, you’re right.

The drug company is then given a 17-year patent so that it can make a profit on the drug. It is little wonder the drug companies fight against natural treatments such as Laetrile, because they are unable to patent them and they pose a serious threat to their profit margins. But you are able to patent your treatment, so why was there no interest in it from the drug companies?

Basically you have 17 years from the time when you have approval of the patent and this is independent from FDA’s approval process. You file the patent, once you make a discovery, and then you go through FDA procedure. You spend say 12 years or 15 years for the approval process, then you have only 2 years license from the FDA, because license is going to expire in another 2 years. Certainly the pharmaceutical companies are spending a lot of money in this process.

In our case I decided to develop this on my own, to generate money from my private practice and use the money to support the research of Antineoplastons. Again we were approached by many different pharmaceutical companies, which were interested in working with us. Certainly after the bad experience (with Elan) we are very cautious with whom to deal. On the other hand pharmaceutical companies were afraid of action from the FDA.

The NCI put off testing Antineoplastons using the fact that it failed their standard P388 leukemia mouse test, is that correct?

Yes

What is the P388 leukemia mouse test and why did Antineoplastons fail it?

Well we had informed the NCI that this was a bad type of test for antineoplastons. Antineoplastons seems to be specific for species. Different animals have different antineoplastons; mice have a different composition of antineoplastons than humans. Practically, human antineoplastons may work well in humans, but they may not have much activity in mice. We knew this, even before the NCI began testing. On the other hand we didn’t have good results at all in the acute form of leukemia and we didn’t even accept such patients. It was known that if they only do this type of test, it was not going to work. They still tested and used this to say that Antineoplastons don’t work against cancer. Certainly the fact that something works or doesn’t work against mice leukemia is irrelevant.

I’d like the reader to bear with me in the next few questions, as the point will become clear. One of the chemicals you identified in the peptides was phenylacetate. But it was far inferior to the others and you chose not to patent it, is that correct?

This is not a peptide, this is a metabolite of our antineoplastons and it’s an organic acid. So this is a final metabolite of antineoplastons. It has some anti-cancer activity, but the weakest of all antineoplastons. We knew about it and that’s why after some preliminary experience in the treatment of phenylacetate back in 1980, we decided that it’s not worth pursuing this and then we used antineoplastons that have higher activity.

But didn’t you later find out that the NCI actually holds the patent for phenylacetate?

You’re right. NCI is the owner of the patent, Dr. Samid is the author but Elan has the license to use these patents. All of these three work together.

Why did the NCI patent something that was far inferior to your other Antineoplastons?

Because they knew that this was the only chance that they can get hold of something which has to do with antineoplastons.

The NCI ran clinical trials on phenylacetate in 1992 and found it to be worthless, is that correct?

Well, the clinical trials began in 1992 but it took a few years to have the results. It shows some effectiveness in brain tumors and in prostate cancer. But of course it was far away from the results that we can get with antineoplastons.

When did the NCI eventually start clinical trials of Antineoplastons?

In 1994.

I assume you gave the doctors running the trials all the information about correct dosages, is that true?

Yes, well, basically they used dosages that were 50 times lower than what we feel are effective dosages. We have some patient’s relatives who were present when the treatment was administered. Formulations of antineoplastons were badly diluted. This means that the patient was receiving very little antineoplastons and some of these patients were removed from the treatment after a short period of time because they were overloaded with fluid. Well normally we see fluid overload in perhaps less than 2% of our patients. So it makes sense that perhaps the formulations of antineoplastons were diluted and when the Mayo Clinic (1999) determined the concentration of antineoplastons in blood, we realize that it was something like 50 times lower than what it should be.

Do you think the NCI purposely sabotaged your trials?

I have no doubt about it. They sabotaged the trial; they accepted patients who were too advanced. Their main effort was to give a low dose of the medicine for a short period of time and to stop treatment just for some minor problem, like if a patient developed a skin rash. They were trying to give the treatment only for a very short period of time, like for instance a couple of weeks or a month. And then of course the patient was dying after that. It was completely unethical, it was horrible. As you probably heard recently, the pharmacist who was diluting an anti-cancer drug, was sentenced to 10 years in prison. I think the same should happen to these guys who really were trying to use this for their political manipulations.

Jessica Kerfoot. In remission for several years after using Antineoplastons.

Please see the Burzynski Patients web site for more information,
http:// http://www.burzynskipatientgroup.org

You may also e-mail Mary Jo Siegel, the lady who runs the web site. Mary is also a cancer survivor using Antineoplastons.
maryjo@siegel.net

How much influence do the pharmaceutical companies wield in medicine in the US?

Extreme influence. Most of the oncologists, I’m talking about reputable oncologists, they work for pharmaceutical companies, they work in clinical trials, they receive various type of incentives from pharmaceutical companies. And basically these doctors are approving medicine, FDA may approve the medicine, but finally this advisory board may advise FDA to go ahead with this or do not approve that medicine. So really the doctors who are deciding if the medicine should be approved or not, practically all of them have some type of relation with large pharmaceutical companies.

Is there a conspiracy to suppress other treatments or is it just a case of avaricious businesses, the pharmaceutical and hospital industry’s, doing everything in their power to protect their bottom line?

Well certainly they have a lot of power. When I filed my application for IND, the standard FDA policy was such that they would never approve a new drug for an individual owner, only for the large pharmaceutical companies. And that’s why I believe we waited for such a long time to receive the go-ahead for our clinical trial. So certainly there were obstruction tactics. Whether this is a conspiracy or not is hard for me to tell. As you can see, the leads which I presented, like for instance a researcher who worked for me initially and then decided to go to the higher bidder, which was a pharmaceutical company; then the relationship between the pharmaceutical company and governmental agencies. All of this indicates that there is some type of conspiracy. I think a Congressional committee should study this.

Turning our attention to the doctor/oncology profession. When reading Thomas Elias’s excellent book, “The Burzynski Breakthrough”, I was struck by how many times patients said that their oncologists were aggressively opposed to them taking your treatment.

Even after a patient’s success with your treatment, very few doctors give you the credit. Is this due to jealousy, arrogance, plain old denial or something else?

Probably a lot of arrogance. We have some prominent specialists, the best specialists in the world who really acknowledge our results and would like to work with us. On the other hand you have some doctors who hate to see a patient with success on our treatment. The fact that the patient is coming to their office, years after the patient should be dead, is something like a slap in the face. They hate it.

They will do everything they can to lie, to obstruct the information about this patient. We have a lot of evidence that oncologists were lying about the patient’s condition. For instance the patient recovered completely from highly malignant cancer and the oncologist was telling us the patient died from cancer. So certainly, we have a lot of evidence about some of these doctors who are dishonest, who are liars, who cheat. But on the other hand you can’t really put the same label on the entire profession. There are many other doctors who are honest and who like to know about what we have. Of course our clinic has board certified oncologists who are taking care of our patients.

I found an interesting quote by David Stewart, a philanthropist who helped fund Gaston Naessens cancer research in the 70’s. He says,
“I can say categorically that most scientific researchers with whom I have had to deal are highly opinionated, arrogant, condescending, and have built-in, insurmountable prejudices.”

Would you agree with these sentiments? What have your experiences been?

Well certainly, I think he’s right; unfortunately that’s the truth.

We spoke about Crystin Schiff briefly before. This is a particularly despicable story, because when Ric Schiff asked Dr. Michael Prados, then head of neuro-oncology at University of California at San Francisco Medical Center (UCSF), if he knew of any other treatment besides chemotherapy/radiation for Crystin’s brain tumor, Prados replied in the negative. But a few years before, he had sent you 14 letters documenting the effectiveness of Antineoplastons on Jeff Keller, another patient with brain cancer. Is this story true?

Yes, it’s true; of course Jeff Keller had an extremely malignant brain tumor. He had a high-grade glioma of the brain; he failed radiation therapy and additional treatments. He responded extremely well to our treatment. He was one of the patients whose case was presented to the NCI. So there was no doubt about his response. Dr. Prados knew about it. If he was dealing with a hopeless tumor like Crystin Schiff, why didn’t he call us?

Ryan and mother Cindy. Ryan is in remission for several years after using Antineoplastons.

Please see the Burzynski Patients web site for more information,
http:// http://www.burzynskipatientgroup.org

You may also e-mail Mary Jo Siegel, the lady who runs the web site. Mary is also a cancer survivor using Antineoplastons.
maryjo@siegel.net

Do you know why Prados did not tell them about Keller’s success with your treatment?

It’s hard for me to tell. It happens that Dr. Prados and Dr, Friedman, who became the boss of the FDA, came from the same medical school. So they work closely together, and perhaps there is something to do with the general action against us. It would be inconvenient for Dr. Prados to say that the treatment works if FDA was trying to get rid of us and when his friend was Commissioner of the FDA at that time. Perhaps that’s the connection….

One of your greatest critics is Saul Green (Ph.D. Biochemistry), a retired biochemist from Memorial Sloan Kettering. In 1992 the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), published Green’s article, “Antineoplastons: An Unproved Cancer Therapy.” What were his conclusions about Antineoplastons?

Well, Green is not a medical doctor, he’s a retired biochemist; he never reviewed our results. He got hold of some of our patents and that’s what he based his opinion on.

He was hired by another insurance company (Aetna) that was in litigation with us. He’s like a hired assassin. Not telling the truth. So really to argue with him is good for nothing. Even if something were completely clear he would negate it. He is simply a guy who was hired by our adversaries. He would do whatever they paid him to do.

Paul Leverett was diagnosed with a glioblastoma multiforme grade 4 brain stem tumor in May 1999. The prognosis was that he would probably be dead before the end of 1999. Orthodox medicine gave him no hope of survival.

Paul was given the maximum amount of radiation he was capable of receiving. It slowed the tumors growth slightly, but this did not alter Paul’s prospects for survival at all.

After completing some research on the Internet Paul learned about Dr. Burzynski’s Antineoplastons. Paul began taking Antineoplastons intravenously, administered by his wife, in September 1999. After 6 weeks Paul’s tumor had grown by only 2 %, Glioblastoma’s normally double in size every 2 weeks.

A PET scan in December 2000 confirmed that Paul was in complete remission. He stayed on Antineoplastons until August 2001 to ensure the tumor would not reoccur. There is just under 20% tumor necrosis remaining in his brain stem, which is probably scar tissue.

Paul’s oncologist (at MD Anderson, Houston) initially wanted to show his scan’s to his hospitals (MD Anderson) tumor review board. But then, for whaever reason, he refused further contact with Paul and did not go ahead with it.

The photo was taken with his wife Jennie. Paul had a web site created in order to inform people about his cancer experiences.
http://www.dontevergiveup.com

E-mail: pjleverett@ev1.net

Did Green ask to look at your patients’ files or even talk to any of your patients themselves?

No.

You responded with an article with 137 references, did JAMA publish even part of it?

JAMA refused to publish the article. They decided that they would publish a short letter to the editors. And obviously this is another dirty thing, because letters to the editors are not in the reference books. If you look in the computer and try to find letters to the editor from JAMA, you’ll never find it. So people who are interested will always find Green’s article, but they will never find our reply to Green’s article, unless they go to the library. Then they can look in the JAMA volume in which the letter was published, and then they will find it. So many doctors were asking me why I did not respond to Saul Green’s article because they never found my letter to the editors.

Are they obligated to publish your rebuttal?

Certainly they are, because they put Green’s article in JAMA in the first place, they accepted it without any peer review and then they did not allow me to honestly respond to it. I should be allowed to publish my response to the article in JAMA.

At the time of the publication Green was working as a consultant to Grace Powers Monaco, Esq., a Washington attorney who was assisting Aetna insurance agency in its lawsuit against you. What was the Aetna lawsuit about?

One of our patients sued Aetna because Aetna refused to pay for my treatment. Then Aetna got involved and Aetna sued us. Aetna really became involved in what you can call racketeering tactics because they contacted practically every insurance company in the US. They smeared us, they advised insurance companies to not pay for our services. So based on all of this, our lawyer decided to file a racketeering suit against Aetna. This was a 190 million dollar lawsuit against Aetna. So certainly Aetna was trying to discredit us by using people like Saul Green. And they hired him to work on their behalf.

So there was an obvious conflict of interest for Green because he worked for Monaco who was assisting Aetna. Was this information published in the JAMA article?

No.

Green also questions the fact that you have a Ph.D.. At the American Association for Clinical Chemistry Symposium, July 1997, Atlanta, GA., he says in part

“Burzynski’s claim to a Ph.D. is questionable. Letters from the Ministry of Health,
Warsaw, Poland, and from faculty at the Medical Academy at Lublin, Poland, say,
respectively:

1. At the time Burzynski was in school, medical schools did not give a Ph.D.
2. Burzynski received the D.Msc. in 1968 after completing a one-year laboratory
project and passing an exam. (3) Burzynski did no independent research while in medical school.”

He cites the people below as giving him some of this information.

1. Nizanskowski, R. ,Personal communication. Jan 15, 1992.
3. Bielinski, S., Personal communication, Nov. 22, 1987

First of all, do you have a Ph.D.?

Well, the program in Poland is somewhat different than the US. What I have is equivalent to a US Ph.D. When a medical doctor in the US graduates from medical school, he receives a medical doctor diploma. In Poland it’s a similar diploma, but it’s called a physician diploma, which is equal to medical doctor. And after that, if you would like to obtain a Ph.D., you have to do independent research, both in the US and in Poland. So you have to work on an independent project, you have to write a doctorate thesis and, in addition, to that in Poland, you have to take exams in medicine, in philosophy and also you have to take exams in the subjects on which you have written your thesis, in my case this was biochemistry.

As you can see from the letter from the President of the medical school from which I graduated, this is a Ph.D..

Saul Green got information from the guys who were key communist figures in my medical school. The second secretary of the communist party in my school, hated my guts, because I didn’t want to be a communist. So, somehow, Green got hold of “reputable” communist sources (laugh) to give him that information. It is exactly the President of the medical school who certified that I have a Ph.D..

So you are saying that theses people he received his personal communication from, Nizanskowski R, and Bielinski S, are both Communists, is that correct, or they were?

Not only communists, but Bielinski was one of the key players in the communist party in my medical school. So certainly he was extremely active as a communist. And, you know that communists, they usually don’t tell the truth.

So there is absolutely no question about it, you have a Ph.D. and Green’s doubts are totally without foundation. Has he ever acknowledged publicly the fact that you have a Ph.D.?

He’s never got in touch with me regarding this.

There are some mainstream oncologists who have stated publicly that your treatment works such as Dr. Robert Burdick, oncologist and professor at the University of Washington Medical School.

He is one of the top experts in this field.

Dr. Burzynski, there are undoubtedly many people alive today solely because of your treatments, but there could be many hundreds or thousands more alive if the public was given free access to your treatment. Do you see this ever happening?

I see this happening within a few years. We already have 8 clinical trials that prove efficacy of the treatment. However, we still need to treat more patients, because in each of our clinical trials it is required that we treat 40 patients. If we are talking about 78 clinical trials, then the number of patients that need to be treated is about 3,000. We are moving forward, probably in another 2 to 3 years we will have final approval.

A group shot of some of Dr. Burzynski’s patients. Please see the Burzynski Patients web site for more information,
http:// http://www.burzynskipatientgroup.org

You may also e-mail Mary Jo Siegel, the lady who runs the web site. Mary is also a cancer survivor using Antineoplastons.
maryjo@siegel.net

You have fought the government on behalf of your patients’ rights for over 25 years. There must have been a few times when you considered calling it quits. What has sustained you over the years and kept you fighting?

Well you see, basically the principle. Certainly I could practice just regular medicine and not
spend millions of dollars for the research, which I did. And I could go to some other country and practice. But I feel that this is my obligation because what I am doing is right. I’m saving peoples lives. So why should I give in to some mediocre characters, to liars, to people who really misrepresent what I do. And if I fail, then America will fail also. Because really America is the bastion of Democracy in the world. If America is rotten, then the whole world will go down to hell. So if something is rotten in the Patent office, in the NCI and FDA, it is the duty of the citizen to show that this is rotten and should be corrected.

There are a number of good people who can make it work, so why should bad people erode and destroy the entire system. I felt that this was my obligation; I felt that I was right and even if I had to go to prison, I would fight for it, because this is the right thing to do. Otherwise I could not look at myself in the mirror. I would despise myself.

Do you think we will we ever have medical freedom of choice in the US, where we can choose whatever treatment we want for cancer?

I am not sure if this will ever happen. But at least I am hoping that the movement, which we pioneered, like this alternative medicine movement, will bring a lot of good to the American people. After all, now you have official recognition of alternative treatment, more or less, and this is because of our fight. If we wouldn’t fight at that time, then perhaps it would not happen, but maybe it would happen another ten years from now.

Standard medical practices and the observations of physicians who are outside the medical establishment are extremely important, because anybody can make a discovery and improve the health of people. This I think is an important movement, but whether the people of America will ever have a chance to select whatever treatment they want, is another story.

Finally Dr. Burzynski, a hearty thanks to you for keeping your treatment available to cancer patients, for keeping your oath as a doctor and putting the patient ahead of financial gain, and of course, for saving lives. Please keep up the great work. Thank you for giving me the time to conduct this interview and inform people about your work and treatment.

Thank you.

End of interview.

Gavin.

Please be aware. Orthodox medicine often states that people who have recovered from cancer by unapproved methods did so due to a “spontaneous remission”. This means that the cancer just disappears for no apparent reason. First of all, I do not know of any documented cases of spontaneous remissions in brain cancer. In other serious cancers it is so rare as to be unworthy of discussion.

But here is the most crucial point. A true spontaneous remission is when the cancer goes away without any treatment, either approved or unapproved. It’s absurd to suggest that someone who received large amounts of Antineoplastons, and is then cancer free, had a spontaneous remission. If someone has surgery to remove a tumor and they are cancer free for years, we know it was because of the surgery.

Also remember that in many cases cancer patients turn to Antineoplastons (and other so-called alternatives) after chemotherapy and/or radiation have failed. If the patient goes into remission, oncologists often state that it was a delayed response to their treatment. This is a very convenient situation for oncologists. When their treatments fail, they still claim the credit for the patient’s recovery, even after the patient has been on Antineoplastons (or other treatments) for months/years.

Read about Dr. Burzynski’s treatment from the most important sources, the patients who had cancer and who are alive today because of Antineoplastons. The Burzynski Patients Web Site
http:// http://www.burzynskipatientgroup.org

Dr. Burzynski’s clinic can be reached at 713-335-5697.
His web site is http://www.cancermed.com

Kim Moreno’s short interview is below.

Kim also has an e-mail account she specifically set-up for people to contact her about her experiences with Dr. Burzynski, oncologists, Antineoplastons and cancer treatments in general. Any e-mail unrelated to these subjects will be deleted.
kimmoreno5@yahoo.com

Gavin Phillips non-profit web site
http://www.cancerinform.org

Some other Internet links that may be of use to you in your research.

http://naturalhealthline.com/

http://www.ralphmoss.com/

While searching the Internet for links related to Koch’s glyoxylide, I found a recent article on Dr. Mercola’s web site related to a drug called Methylglyoxal (the lead ingredient, which is a metabolite in our body) that has been tested in India for over ten years. Please see,
http://www.mercola.com/2001/jun/13/methylglyoxal.htm

http://www.drwhitaker.com/

http://www.dr-gonzalez.com/

http://www.gerson.org/

Interview with Kim Moreno

Thank you for taking the time to inform people about your family’s experiences while your daughter Tori was taking Antineoplastons.

Tori was first diagnosed with a Stage 4 brain stem glioma in August 1998, is that correct?

Yes

What was the prognosis?

The doctor’s basically told us to take her home and prepare for her to die.

Were there any records of anyone surviving with this type of cancer, using orthodox treatments?

None that they could provide us with.

How many cancer centers did you visit?

We originally were at Miller’s Children at Long Beach Memorial and then went to City of Hope. We also sent her MRI’s to Dr. Fred Epstein in New York to be looked at.

And they all said the same thing, Tori’s brain cancer was fatal and nothing could be done? How long was she expected to live?

Yes, they all said there was nothing we could do. She was given 2-6 weeks to live.

How did you find out about Dr. Burzynski and Antineoplastons?

On the Internet on a brain tumor support group. We read a letter from a father whose daughter was on the treatment.

Did you ask your doctors about Burzynski? Had they heard of him or researched his treatment?

Yes, we asked all of them about it. Most frowned at the idea, the oncologist refused to see her if we took her to see Dr. Burzynski. The only one who told us that he thought Dr. B might have a good chance with helping us was Dr. Fred Epstein.

When did you first visit him?

In October 1998

Did he tell you he could cure Tori?

No. He said he thought Antineoplastons would help her, but he wasn’t sure he had enough time. He was very upfront and honest with the statistics he had with her type of cancer but offered no promises.

How much Antineoplastons was Tori taking?

I can’t even remember what dose she ended up on when she was taking it intravenously.

What were the side effects? In the photos you sent me, Tori is greatly enlarged, I assume due to fluid retention. Is that what it was? How was that alleviated? Were there any other side effects due to the Antineoplastons?

We always had to monitor her potassium and sodium. So, she had to drink a lot of water and therefore we went through a lot of diapers. Those were the worst of the side effects. In the picture, she was so large due to being on Decadron, which we were able to wean her off of in January 1999.

Were you surprised when Tori started responding?

Yes, I have to say I was. It is hard to believe something great is going to come out of something so painful. I guess she taught me not to lose faith in life.

How soon was it before Tori’s brain tumor started reducing in size?

Immediately. It had shrunk in size by 20% after the very first MRI, which I believe was in 6-8 weeks…it’s been a long time and a lot of MRI’s later.

For how long did Tori continue to take Antineoplastons intravenously? Did you administer this yourself at home?

She took them through IV for 2 years and yes; we did this all at home.

Does your insurance company pay for the treatment? Did they try to avoid paying for it?

No, they do not pay for the treatment.

I understand Tori is 5 today. Is she still taking Antineoplastons? Has the tumor completely gone?

Yes, she just turned five in June. She still takes Antineoplastons orally…. she takes 40 capsules a day. Her tumor has decreased in size by 86% and they believe what is left may be scar tissue.

Has Tori suffered any permanent side-side effects from Antineoplastons?

Not one. In fact, it decreased her symptoms dramatically and never caused her any harm.

So Tori is cancer free and side effect free today?

Absolutely….

This is an incredible story Kim. Your child was diagnosed with a fatal brain cancer and the best oncologists and surgeons in America told you it was hopeless. Yet you found a cure for your child, without the billions, and so-called cancer specialists, that the NCI has at its disposal. Have any oncologists or doctors asked you about Dr. Burzynski’s treatment?

They tend to ask very quietly, but never really respond to what I have to tell them. There is curiosity there, just no one is really willing to step up to the plate and believe that the antineoplastons had something to do with her survival.

What do they say now that Tori is alive and well?

The neurologists told us that sometimes it happens and they called it “spontaneous remission”. Again, I asked them to provide some statistics and there were none to be seen.

That is of course the height of absurdity. To my knowledge, there has never been a documented case of any brain cancer going into spontaneous remission. Have you ever mentioned that to them?

Yes, again with no intelligent response.

So they are quite content to administer the same cancer causing, toxic treatments, when they know about your daughter’s success with Antineoplastons?

Absolutely. It amazes me that some of them can sleep at night.

Has your opinion about the medical profession, specifically cancer specialists, changed since Tori’s recovery? If it has, in what manner?

Yes, it has changed a lot. I guess the biggest change would be that I no longer sit back and believe anything a doctor tells m e and that we have to take our healthcare into our hands by searching for legitimate options. I believe we have the right to choose.

What do you think about the fact that some 3,000 children in the US (untold thousands worldwide) this year will be diagnosed with some form of brain cancer, and their families will have to face the same horror you did, the horror of losing a child. But virtually all of them will not be told about Antineoplastons, the treatment that cured Tori?

It really makes me sick to my stomach. That is why I want to talk to anyone who wants to listen about Tori’s Story

Finally, I commend you and your husband for finding a way to cure your daughter, when all the “experts” said it was hopeless. You gave her life when she was born, and then you saved her life by finding Antineoplastons.

I thank you once again Kim for answering my questions and sending me the photos of Tori. Give my best to your family.

Gavin Phillips opinion

Dr. Burzynski is a great rarity these days. He is a courageous man who risked everything battling the FDA for over 15 years so as to allow cancer patients access to his treatment. A doctor who puts his patients well being before financial gains. But how many people diagnosed with cancer this year will ever find out about Antineoplastons? A tiny percentage, because very few mainstream oncologists will inform their patients about a treatment that has yet to be approved. And why is that? The NCI and ACS have supposedly been searching for decades for any and all treatments that are effective against cancer. For over 15 years Dr. Burzynski’s treatment has shown that it is effective. Many cancer patients, including some very young children with supposedly hopeless brain cancers, are alive today because of Antineoplastons.

Here we come to the most crucial questions of all. Why did the FDA try their utmost to ruin Dr. Burzynski by involving him in 4 court cases? Why did the NCI make certain Burzynski’s clinical trials failed by diluting his treatment and enrolling patients who were the least likely to respond to Antineoplastons? If this was a one-time only event, we could dismiss it as an aberration; on overzealous government agencies. But the persecution of Dr. Burzynski is not an aberration, but the norm. There have been many well-documented cases in the last 70 some years of doctors/healers who discovered an effective cancer treatment, only to find the full force of the cancer agencies trying to destroy them and their discoveries. I have learned about several during my research. Dr. William Koch/Glyoxylide, Dr. Andrew Ivy/Krebiozen, Harry Hoxsey method/herbs, Royal Rife/radio waves, Ernst Krebs/ Laetrile/Amygdalin, Gaston Naessens/714 X, Dr. Lawrence Burton/Immuno-Augmentative Therapy, Dr. Max Gerson method/diet.

What, if anything, does Dr. Burzynski’s Antineoplastons have in common with these other treatments? Most of them are natural; all of them are inexpensive to produce, especially when compared to the enormous costs of conventional treatments. If cheap cancer treatments with virtually no side effects were allowed to freely compete with the cancer causing offerings of the pharmaceutical companies, the outcome is obvious. The pharmaceutical companies, and the hospitals that administer their drugs, will lose tens of billions in profits. And this I believe is the reason Dr. Burzynski, and the people who have gone before him, have been publicly vilified as “quacks” and their treatments discredited. The fact is that the pharmaceutical companies control American medicine, and they are only interested in treatments from which they can derive a profit.

Every cancer patient in America, and the world, should have free access to Antineoplastons. It is intolerable, not to mention totally un-American, to give a profit obsessed industry a monopoly over Americans healthcare. Nobody should have the right to force toxic chemicals down our family’s throat, especially when Dr. Burzynski’s treatment has proven effective (for some cancers) and does not have appalling side effects.

One point, in which I disagree with Burzynski about, is the possibility of medical freedom of choice happening in America. It would happen in a year or two if enough Americans demanded it. You can help make that a reality. Please forward this interview to as many people as you know, as well as media outlets. Around ten thousand Americans die every week from cancer; we simply must have medical freedom of choice. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Gavin Phillips.
http://www.cancerinform.org

E-mail this sites address to someone and help spread the word

Return to the top of the page

E-mail me: cancerinfo11@yahoo.com
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
http://www.cancerinform.org/aburzinterview.html
======================================
http://www.cancerinform.org/aburzinterview2.html
======================================