Jump to content

Welcome to Grasscity Forums - Register now for FREE
Register now to gain access to all of our features, it's FREE and only takes one minute.
Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Create an Account

Antineoplaston Cure for Cancer - Dr. Burzynski


  • Please log in to reply
 

#1
weed:myantidrug

weed:myantidrug

    Philadelphia Collins

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 560 posts
Honestly, one of the best documentaries I've ever seen. Absolutely worth watching. I am left speechless.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qG_ZWs04es]Cancer Cure Documentary - Dr. Burzynski Antineoplaston Therapy - YouTube[/ame]

I think this documentary has been posted on the forum before, but studies disproving antineoplaston therapy are purposefully misleading, the documentary explains how and why.

EDIT: I understand this guy is controversial. And I've tried to counter some of the common arguments against him in the few posts that follow. The FDA recently approved it for Phase III clinical trials. There is a lot of debate over the effectiveness, but the video sheds light on some of the legal problems it has faced.


"ABOUT THE FILM:

Burzynski, the Movie is the story of a medical doctor and Ph.D biochemist named Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski who won the largest, and possibly the most convoluted and intriguing legal battle against the Food & Drug Administration in American history.

His victorious battles with the United States government were centered around Dr. Burzynski's gene-targeted cancer medicines he discovered in the 1970's called Antineoplastons, which have currently completed Phase II FDA-supervised clinical trials in 2009 and could begin the final phase of FDA testing in 2011–barring the ability to raise the required $300 million to fund the final phase of FDA clinical trials.

When Antineoplastons are approved, it will mark the first time in history a single scientist, not a pharmaceutical company, will hold the exclusive patent and distribution rights on a paradigm-shifting medical breakthrough.

Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Various cancer survivors are presented in the film who chose these medicines instead of surgery, chemotherapy or radiation - with full disclosure of medical records to support their diagnosis and recovery - as well as systematic (non-anecdotal) FDA-supervised clinical trial data comparing Antineoplastons to other available treatments—which is published within the peer-reviewed medical literature.

One form of cancer - diffuse, intrinsic, childhood brainstem glioma has never before been cured in any scientifically controlled clinical trial in the history of medicine. Antineoplastons hold the first cures in history - dozens of them. [ANP - PubMed 2003] [ANP - PubMed 2006] [ANP - Cancer Therapy 2007] [Rad & other - PubMed 2008] [Chemo/Rad - PubMed 2005]

This documentary takes the audience through the treacherous, yet victorious, 14-year journey both Dr. Burzynski and his patients have had to endure in order to obtain FDA-approved clinical trials of Antineoplastons.

Dr. Burzynski resides and practices medicine in Houston, Texas. He was able to initially produce and administer his discovery without FDA-approval from 1977-1995 because the state of Texas at this time did not require that Texas physicians be required to adhere to Federal law in this situation. This law has since been changed.

As with anything that changes current-day paradigms, Burzynski's ability to successfully treat incurable cancer with such consistency has baffled the industry. Ironically, this fact had prompted numerous investigations by the Texas Medical Board, who relentlessly took Dr. Burzynski as high as the state supreme court in their failed attempt to halt his practices.

Likewise, the Food and Drug Administration engaged in four Federal Grand Juries spanning over a decade attempting to indict Dr. Burzynski, all of which ended in no finding of fault on his behalf. Finally, Dr. Burzynski was indicted in their 5th Grand Jury in 1995, resulting in two federal trials and two sets of jurors finding him not guilty of any wrongdoing. If convicted, Dr. Burzynski would have faced a maximum of 290 years in a federal prison and $18.5 million in fines.

However, what was revealed a few years after Dr. Burzynski won his freedom, helps to paint a more coherent picture regarding the true motivation of the United States government's relentless persecution of Stanislaw Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D.

Note: When Antineoplastons are approved for public use, it will allow a single scientist to hold an exclusive right to manufacture and sell these medicines on the open market—leaving the pharmaceutical industry absent in profiting from the most effective gene-targeted cancer treatment the world has ever seen."

Edited by weed:myantidrug, 11 January 2012 - 11:21 PM.


#2
SheenTheSage

SheenTheSage

    Studious Inquirer

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 567 posts
I don't know what to think of this guy. He's not 100% legit, that I know for sure. The reason? He's declined to pursue research in other countries, and he's been content with recruiting a few people to Texas...when I say a few, I mean his yearly quota is set small by the government. I think like 120 per year through clinical trials? He might say the number in the documentary. In any event, he charges like $100,000 for one year of treatment?

At any rate, setting aside his reputation, his science is certainly a lot of hype...and has never been verified. He never directly accuses the American Cancer Society of poor experiments, but he does say that "look, I've had proven success". Yea! With like 10 patients? That's not enough evidence for me. It's a nice hope, but there are other, more promising therapies involving newer chemotherapies, surgeries, new types of radiation treatment which are more cancer-selective (kills less healthy cells, which is plainly good), viral gene therapies, bone marrow transplants, and stem cell therapies. Where it will lead, I don't know, but I can tell you that Dr. Burzynski is a bit complacent and overly content with where he and his research are at.

#3
weed:myantidrug

weed:myantidrug

    Philadelphia Collins

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 560 posts

I don't know what to think of this guy. He's not 100% legit, that I know for sure. The reason? He's declined to pursue research in other countries, and he's been content with recruiting a few people to Texas...when I say a few, I mean his yearly quota is set small by the government. I think like 120 per year through clinical trials? He might say the number in the documentary. In any event, he charges like $100,000 for one year of treatment?

At any rate, setting aside his reputation, his science is certainly a lot of hype...and has never been verified. He never directly accuses the American Cancer Society of poor experiments, but he does say that "look, I've had proven success". Yea! With like 10 patients? That's not enough evidence for me. It's a nice hope, but there are other, more promising therapies involving newer chemotherapies, surgeries, new types of radiation treatment which are more cancer-selective (kills less healthy cells, which is plainly good), viral gene therapies, bone marrow transplants, and stem cell therapies. Where it will lead, I don't know, but I can tell you that Dr. Burzynski is a bit complacent and overly content with where he and his research are at.



Honestly man, watch the documentary, listen to the testimonies. He treats far more than 10 patients, and with astounding results. All the medical information is presented in the video. For many of these critical types of cancer, (dealing with the most fatal) families are given the option of undergoing devastating chemotherapy and radiation in order to prolong life expectancy only a few months, and with little positive outcomes. Those therapies are carcinogenic themselves and can lead to further health problems.

The results of this type of treatment, and the lack of negative health effects, are so astounding that the FDA attempted to file for 10+ patents on all of Burzynski's antineoplastons. They have come out and stated that this is an effective method in multiple peer reviewed journals. The therapy is approved by the FDA and the National Cancer Institute. However they have both engaged in a long term propaganda campaign in order to get the rights to these drugs in the hands of big pharmaceutical companies. The inability to do so has led to purposeful misinformation, faulty clinical trial results, and the suppression of this discovery. I had the exact same skepticism about it, but all of the claims against him are thoroughly addressed in the video.

Seriously, watch the whole thing. You can't really make any claims against it if you haven't. It goes out of its way and does an incredible job at making its case.

Edited by weed:myantidrug, 11 January 2012 - 06:50 AM.


#4
SheenTheSage

SheenTheSage

    Studious Inquirer

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 567 posts
I watched it about a year ago all the way through because i was captivated, and nothing struck me as conclusive, though there were a lot of apparently positive results. After I did my research on the guy, I came to learn that he's partly, though not wholly, or even largely, a fraud, and that his research is actually disproven. At first, he sold me too. The USA has funded at least three investigations, and Canada has funded at least one. All of them, to my knowledge, came back with no positive results. Granted, this doesn't, for certain, prove anything either, just that some hypothetical shitfucks (no offense to the researchers involved in disproving Burzynski)did some research and it came back negative, so they claim.

The FDA may be corrupt, but I don't think you can prove they are lying and indoctrinating people about antineoplastons, and this doesn't explain why Canada disproved his treatments too.

#5
ISnuff

ISnuff

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 1,018 posts
"Antineoplaston (ANP), a word derived from neoplasm,[1] is a name coined by Stanislaw Burzynski for a group of peptides, derivatives, and mixtures that he uses as an alternative cancer treatment.[2] These compounds are not licensed as drugs but are instead sold and administered by Burzynski as part of clinical trials that he runs at his own establishments, the Burzynski Clinic​ and the Burzynski Research Institute in Houston, Texas.[3][4][5] Although Burzynski and his associates claim success in the use of antineoplaston combinations for the treatment of various diseases, there is no evidence of clinical efficacy of these methods. Oncologists have described these studies as flawed, with one doctor stating that they are "scientific nonsense".[6] In particular, independent scientists have been unable to reproduce the positive results reported in Burzynski's studies.[7]

There is no convincing evidence from any randomized controlled trial that antineoplastons are useful treatments of cancer. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved antineoplastons for the treatment of any disease.[3] The American Cancer Society has found no evidence that antineoplastons have any beneficial effects in cancer, and it has recommended that people do not spend money on antineoplaston treatments.[8] A 2004 medical review described this treatment as a "disproven therapy".[9]"

Yeah, I know Wikipedia is an awful source, but the shit is cited.

#6
weed:myantidrug

weed:myantidrug

    Philadelphia Collins

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 560 posts

I watched it about a year ago all the way through because i was captivated, and nothing struck me as conclusive, though there were a lot of apparently positive results. After I did my research on the guy, I came to learn that he's partly, though not wholly, or even largely, a fraud, and that his research is actually disproven. At first, he sold me too. The USA has funded at least three investigations, and Canada has funded at least one. All of them, to my knowledge, came back with no positive results. Granted, this doesn't, for certain, prove anything either, just that some hypothetical shitfucks (no offense to the researchers involved in disproving Burzynski)did some research and it came back negative, so they claim.

The FDA may be corrupt, but I don't think you can prove they are lying and indoctrinating people about antineoplastons, and this doesn't explain why Canada disproved his treatments too.


I don't know how you don't find it conclusive. It isn't a speculative video really. They provide paper documents and empirical evidence for all of the claims they make. From full medical records of cancer patients who made complete recoveries, to written documents by the FDA and NCI proving the effectiveness of the therapy. It presents full correspondence between Burzynski and the NCI, and the conflict that surrounds it. They address why the funded research came back inconclusive. And how the FDA purposefully changed the protocol and drug regiment against contractual agreements, and in writing says that it's policy is to refuse to fund any alternative therapy that is not presented by a major Pharma company. It's not like this evidence is anecdotal or hearsay either, it is on the record and can be looked up.

The FDA takes him to a grand jury 4+ times, and each time its concluded that there is no evidence against Burzynski. The trials are not even about its effectiveness because that had already been proven at the time. Even the members of the grand jury begin questioning the FDA's motives in its repeated harassment of his therapy. You don't think the amount of times he was brought to trial was absurd? Something like $60 million in tax payer money was spent on trying to indict him for no apparent reason and there was never any real case against him. And he was acquitted in the end. It's not even just speculation, they present all the paper documents which clearly show the course of events.

I don't know how anyone can watch the testimonies of those suffering families and claim that the therapy has absolutely no merit. They show MRI scans of brain tumors before and after the treatment, and give up to date reports on their remission.

http://www.cancerdec...2/lang,english/

^ "We are gratified and excited by the announcement this week that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has reached an agreement with the Burzynski Research Institute, Inc., for the design of a phase III trial of antineoplaston therapy for the treatment of diffuse intrinsic brainstem glioma, a rare but highly aggressive form of childhood brain cancer. This agreement effectively clears the way for the initiation of this important clinical trial. Stanislaw R. Burzynski, MD, who discovered antineoplastons and now heads the Burzynski Research Institute, has dedicated his life to the pursuit of less invasive means of cancer treatment. The announcement of the Institute’s agreement with the FDA marks a professional and personal triumph for Dr. Burzynski."

Phase III, meaning that it already had to show high levels of efficacy to be recognized or receive any type of official agreement and pass through phases I and II. The US Government has tried to file over 10 patents on antineoplastons... implying that they find value in them.

C'mon guys, seriously, anyone can google antineoplastons and copy and paste the first skeptical result. I'm asking you to watch, consider, research. None of this is compelling to anyone?

Edited by weed:myantidrug, 11 January 2012 - 04:53 PM.


#7
yurigadaisukida

yurigadaisukida

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 13,007 posts
"you are 12 thousand times more likely to die from cancer than a terrorist attack"

how much is the government spending on helping cancer patients? none

how much is the government spending on the war on terror? all of it :confused::confused:

#8
SheenTheSage

SheenTheSage

    Studious Inquirer

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 567 posts

"you are 12 thousand times more likely to die from cancer than a terrorist attack"

how much is the government spending on helping cancer patients? none

how much is the government spending on the war on terror? all of it :confused::confused:

Posted Image

#9
limes11

limes11

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
Insurance coverage is provided by an employer-sponsored self-funded ERISA plan. The company generally advertises that they have one of the big insurance companies.Health insurance is insurance against the risk of incurring medical expenses among individuals.

#10
Brenjin

Brenjin

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 2,801 posts

"Antineoplaston (ANP), a word derived from neoplasm,[1] is a name coined by Stanislaw Burzynski for a group of peptides, derivatives, and mixtures that he uses as an alternative cancer treatment.[2] These compounds are not licensed as drugs but are instead sold and administered by Burzynski as part of clinical trials that he runs at his own establishments, the Burzynski Clinic​ and the Burzynski Research Institute in Houston, Texas.[3][4][5] Although Burzynski and his associates claim success in the use of antineoplaston combinations for the treatment of various diseases, there is no evidence of clinical efficacy of these methods. Oncologists have described these studies as flawed, with one doctor stating that they are "scientific nonsense".[6] In particular, independent scientists have been unable to reproduce the positive results reported in Burzynski's studies.[7]

There is no convincing evidence from any randomized controlled trial that antineoplastons are useful treatments of cancer. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved antineoplastons for the treatment of any disease.[3] The American Cancer Society has found no evidence that antineoplastons have any beneficial effects in cancer, and it has recommended that people do not spend money on antineoplaston treatments.[8] A 2004 medical review described this treatment as a "disproven therapy".[9]"

Yeah, I know Wikipedia is an awful source, but the shit is cited.


The government tries to cite sources for their negative comments on cannabis as well.

Not saying these antineoplastons definitely work or anything but the american cancer society doesn't like competition. They discredit any real therapy through diet as well.

#11
MelT

MelT

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 5,199 posts
This isn't a slight on the OP, it was posted in good faith. I post this simply as a disappointed man. I watched the vid' with great interest as it promised so much. On digging a little bit deeper, unfortunately all is not what it seems.

The story delivered in the film are not as things happened at all. He had ample access to sympathetic alternative and non-governmental labs who said they would be happy to help him out, but he refused.

It's unfortunate, because before he cut the initial FDA1 test short, there were some good results for his method of treating one particular kind of cancer (and no more). But, partial data only exists for 9 patients, so no conclusions can be drawn.

He also hasn't now been given FDA3 approval, as the FDA don't sanction it.

"...I’m unclear as to what he means by ‘Phase III permission from the FDA.’ You do not need, nor do they give permission for Phase III studies. It’s probably more accurate to say the FDA doesn’t have the power to stop Dr. Burzynski from starting a Phase III trial.


The FDA does review Phase III plans and protocols at the end of Phase II trials, but only by request, and for the purpose of determining if the current and planned research is sufficient to support a Marketing Application.


See 21 CRF 312/47 (CFR - Code of Federal Regulations Title 21).


I think it’s significant that Burzynski is touting “FDA has given permission for Phase 3 trials” rather than talking about an End of Phase-II meeting with FDA or any FDA response. While the FDA wouldn’t release that information, they can and would certainly counter any false information.


Google “End of Phase II” and you’ll get pages of company press releases and FDA guidance. You won’t see the word permission anywhere.

However, there is a seamier side to all this. Word of these trials has spread over the years and people with children who have cancer now apply to be placed on his trials of an unproven medicine. Charging to go on a medical trial? Worse, the cost of being 'allowed' to be used as a guinea-pig is anywhere between £140, 000 and £200, 000+. What are they getting for their money? In the case of one of his key antineoplastins a-2.1, it can be bought at any chemistry supplier for less than $5 a kilo.

A PR Flack for Cancer Quack Attempts to Bully Skeptic Bloggers. Ridicule Ensues - I Speak of Dreams

"...Burzynski’s use and advertising of antineoplastons as an unapproved cancer therapy were deemed to be unlawful by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Texas Attorney General,[7][7][8] and limits on the sale and advertising of the treatment were imposed as a result. In 1994, Burzynski was found guilty of insurance fraud for filing a claim for reimbursement by a health insurer for an illegally administered cancer treatment.[9] In 2010, the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners filed a multi-count complaint against Burzynski for failure to meet state medical standards.[10]

His qualifications are:

"..Burzynski's claim to a Ph.D. is questionable. When I investigated, I found:
  • An official from the Ministry of Health in Warsaw informed me that when Burzynski was in school, medical schools did not give a Ph.D. [1].
  • Faculty members from at the Medical Academy at Lubin informed me that Burzynski received his D.Msc. in 1968 after completing a one-year laboratory project and passing an exam and that he had done no independent research while in medical school .
  • In 1973, when Burzinski applied for a federal grant to study "antineoplaston peptides from urine," he identified himself as "Stanislaw Burzynski, M.D, D.Msc."
"..While many articles have been published and dozens of clinical trials against many types of cancer have been ongoing at Dr. Burzynski's clinic for several years, there have not been any randomized controlled trials—the type of study that is required for new anticancer drugs to be approved by the FDA and recommended by conventional oncologists..."

"...Some promising results for the use of antineoplaston therapy have been reported in small studies. Most of these studies were directed by Dr. Burzynski himself. Results from a few small studies conducted by one group of researchers in Japan have also been published. However, the available clinical evidence consists of early-phase clinical trials and best case series..."

"...Although some proponents of antineoplaston therapy have suggested that the reviews of this treatment by conventional cancer specialists are biased by mistrust of alternative therapies, even some prominent figures in the field of alternative medicine have reservations about antineoplastons. According to Dr. Andrew Weil, "Over the years, Dr. Burzynski claims to have treated more than 8,000 patients, but his success rates are unknown. His Web site states only that he has helped 'many' people. If antineoplaston therapy works, we should have scientific studies showing what percentage of patients treated have survived and for how long, as well as evidence showing how Dr. Burzynski's method stacks up against conventional cancer treatment…. Until we have credible scientific evidence showing what antineoplastons are, how they act in the body, and what realistic expectations of treatment with them might be, I see no reason for any cancer patient to take this route."

This is a scam. Deceiving people into believing there is hope for their children for the sake of greed. Hopefully, the one cancer that this drug was perhaps (because the tests were incomplete) good against really will be cured by his methods, it would be a nice way for him to atone what he's doing at present.

It's a murky story and he sounds a less than savoury character who, with his son, is now moving into the world of unproven anti-aging creams. Read more here and make up your own minds:

Stanislaw Burzynski and "Antineoplastons"
Stanislaw Burzynski - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Stanislaw Burzynski
This is a good thread in a medical forum about him and the latest news on what he's been up to:

Science-Based Medicine » Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski

A real shame.


MelT

#12
weed:myantidrug

weed:myantidrug

    Philadelphia Collins

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 560 posts
Hope you respond to this.

I think it’s significant that Burzynski is touting “FDA has given permission for Phase 3 trials” rather than talking about an End of Phase-II meeting with FDA or any FDA response. While the FDA wouldn’t release that information, they can and would certainly counter any false information.


I find it ironic that people are defending the FDA on a forum about marijuana lol honestly. Is it inconceivable that they could be misleading the public about certain medicines? Hmm..

I think it's telling when Dr. Richard J Crout, the FDA Bureau of Drugs Director, is quoted as saying "when anyone other than large institutions ask permission to conduct clinical trials, you want harsh regulations, sometimes we say it is proper to hinder research, and once these guidelines were adopted, the FDA would consider itself “bound” by them. [SOURCE: Cancer Letter 3/12/76 pg 3 http://www.burzynski...2_1976v2n11.pdf

And again in 1982 is quoted as saying: "I never have and never will approve a new drug to an individual, but only to a large pharmaceutical firm with unlimited finances." [SOURCE: The Spotlight, January 18, 1982]

In the case of one of his key antineoplastins a-2.1, it can be bought at any chemistry supplier for less than $5 a kilo.


The video suggest that one antineoplaston by itself is much less effective than using it in conjunction with other antineoplastons.

One of the reasons the clinical trials that the NCI conducted came back inconclusive was that they broke contractual agreements with Burzynski and used the incorrect dosages of the active ingredients at different ratios.

Also they lowered the admission standards against contractual agreements, admitting patients in much worse physical condition. I think the correspondence between the NCI and Burzynski is very telling, starting around 1:23:47. It also shows the dosage differences between the NCI's illegally revised protocol and Burzynski's.

"...Burzynski’s use and advertising of antineoplastons as an unapproved cancer therapy were deemed to be unlawful by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Texas Attorney General, and limits on the sale and advertising of the treatment were imposed as a result. In 1994, Burzynski was found guilty of insurance fraud for filing a claim for reimbursement by a health insurer for an illegally administered cancer treatment. In 2010, the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners filed a multi-count complaint against Burzynski for failure to meet state medical standards.


You don't think the Texas Medical Board and the FDA were acting suspicious? The Texas Medical Board tried to encourage Burzynski's patients to file complaints against him, none ever were. They asked him to submit findings. He submitted forty cases of various types of cancer he had successfully treated using Antineoplastons. In patients ranging from breast, bladder, lung, liver, brain, head and neck, and lymphoma. He never heard back from them. Two years later Texas Medical Board said he was violating a law, that didn't exist, and tried to bring him to court [SOURCE: http://www.burzynski...mplaint_TMB.pdf]


"They filed their first amended complaint in 1990 [SOURCE: http://www.burzynski...omplaintTMB.pdf]—still the board had no case—which prompted them to file a second amended complaint in 1992 [SOURCE: http://www.burzynski...edComplaint.pdf]. The medical board kept coming back each time with the same argument, practically making Xerox copies of their prior claims, changing the titles and simply resubmitting them. After years of this, sixty of Dr. Burzynski’s patients petitioned the board to stop harassing their doctor. The board then tried to ignore these petitions by attempting to strike them from the record. [SOURCE: Motion To Dismiss Strike 1993 http://www.burzynski....503-92-529.pdf]

Finally in May of 1993, this case went to trial.

During this trial, one of the National Cancer Institute’s leading experts, Dr. Nicholas Patronas, a board-certified radiologist since 1973, professor of radiology at Georgetown University, and founder of the neuroradiology section of the National Cancer Institute
[SOURCE: http://www.cc.nih.go...s_patronas.html] —recognized the absurdity of the Texas Medical Board’s case against Burzynski, put his own career on the line and flew himself to Texas to testify on Dr. Burzynski’s behalf. Dr. Patronas testified under oath his role at the National Cancer Institute. He is quoted as saying:

Patronas: 'Yes, the National Cancer Institute asked me to join a group of other physicians and scientists, and come to Houston on a site visit to Dr. Burzynski’s Institute. I was called as an expert in assessing the images to evaluate the effectiveness of his treatment. The basic conclusion, was that in five of the patients with brain tumors, that were fairly large, the tumor resolved, disappeared.'
[SOURCE: Entire Court Transcript https://www.burzynsk...s_Burzynski.pdf]

"...Not surprisingly, the judge ruled in Dr. Burzynski’s favor. Finding that the medical board did not introduce any evidence at the hearing that Antineoplastons are not safe and effective, nor did they introduce any competent or substantial evidence at the hearing that Antineoplastons are not generally recognized by experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate their safety and effectiveness. And, as far as the law goes, it does not apply to a licensed physician who manufactures his own medications and solely uses it on his own patients in the state of Texas." [SOURCE: Findings of Fact/Conclusions of Law 1993 http://www.burzynski...ntJudgement.pdf]


Here is a letter from Homer Goehrs, MD to the Texas Medical Board in support of Burzynski http://www.burzynski...etterToTSMB.pdf



You don't find it suspicious that the FDA convened a grand jury 5 separate times, and spent over $60 million in tax payer money to try and indict him? And what's most absurd is that the topic of efficacy of the drug wasn't even the charge being brought against him.


"In 1985 they seize 200,000 documents, presented the evidence to the grand jury, no indictment. In 1986 they come back and seize another 100,000 documents, no indictment. In 1990, another grand jury, either the second or the third, they present more documents, Dr. Burzynski testifies extensively before the grand jury, no indictment. In 1991 to 1993, the FDA investigates Dr. Burzynski, we don’t know if evidence was presented to another grand jury. 1994, another grand jury, no indictment. 1995, another grand jury..."


Here is a quote from a member of the Oversight & Investigations Subcommittee 11/15/95; Hon. Joe Barton during one of the hearings:


"In my opinion, you have every right to use the investigative authority and the judicial resources of the federal government to the justice department convene a grand jury, that’s very appropriate, the first time, perhaps even the second time, it becomes questionable the third time, the fourth time, and the fifth time, it is not I think an illogical conclusion to think that the FDA has a vendetta against Dr. Burzynski, or wants to retaliate for some reason, now that’s my opinion. How many grand jury investigations have to occur, that result in no finding of fault before you as commissioner of the FDA would encourage those within your organization to cease and desist?"


Here is a letter from Congress to the Attorney General of the United States Janet Reno to end the FDA harassment and abuse of the criminal justice system against Burzynski: http://www.burzynski..._Reno_Abuse.pdf


"Barely a week after these hearings, on November 20th, 1995, Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski was indicted. Burzynski was charged with 75 counts of violating federal law and fraud. If convicted, Burzynski would face a maximum of 290 years in a federal prison, and $18.5 million dollars in fines. Not to mention what would happen to his patients."

The trial is drawn out over a couple years.

"In 1996, because of pressure from the politicians and American opinion, the FDA agreed to accept all of the patients for whom we had at the time into a program of Phase II clinical trials. Basically we filed and received permission from the FDA to proceed with 72 different Phase II clinical trials which covered practically any type of cancer." - Burzynski

The trial was drawn out into 1997.

"On March 4th, 1997, due to a deadlocked jury, the judge declared a mistrial. And, after saying the government had not presented sufficient evidence, he ordered that Dr. Burzynski be acquitted of nearly half of the 75 counts. [SOURCE: NY Times 3/4/97] [SOURCE: Court Document showing first acquittal http://www.burzynski...1stAquittal.pdf]"

"But the FDA was still not backing down. They took Dr. Burzynski to trial, again. Though, after apparently accepting the absurdity of their case, on May 19th the FDA suddenly dropped 40 of the 41 remaining charges. [SOURCE: NY Times 5/18/97] [SOURCE: Court Document showing Dismissal http://www.burzynski..._97_Dismiss.pdf]

"The jury spent about three hours deliberating this house of cards, leaving Burzynski acquitted of the final charge." [SOURCE: Court Document showing final acquittal http://www.burzynski...nalAquittal.pdf]


"..While many articles have been published and dozens of clinical trials against many types of cancer have been ongoing at Dr. Burzynski's clinic for several years, there have not been any randomized controlled trials—the type of study that is required for new anticancer drugs to be approved by the FDA and recommended by conventional oncologists..."


The U.S. Government filed for 11 patents on antineoplastons which were all approved, but later failed because Burzynski already had patents. Below are quotes taken from the United States Government's Patents:

"These patents are full of useful information. Aside from noticing their blatant infringement, 'Compositions and Methods for Treating and Preventing Cancer' [Pg 1], using the distribution of Antineoplastons AS2-1’s ingredients. [pg 71] They enthusiastically state: “The neoplastic conditions treatable by this method include neuroblastoma, leukemia, myelodisplasia, acute glioma, prostate cancer, breast cancer, melanoma, lung cancer, medulloblastoma, and lymphoma” to name a few. [pg 49] They also point out how Antineoplastons can also be used as a cancer preventative. [pg 56]
[SOURCE: US Patent #5,605,930 pg 1, 49, 56, 71 http://www.freepaten...com/5605930.pdf]

However, the most revealing piece of information found in these patents is where they state: “Current approaches to combat cancer rely primarily on the use of chemicals and radiation, which are themselves carcinogenic and may promote recurrences and the development of metastatic disease.” [SOURCE: US Patent #5,605,930 pg 56 http://www.freepaten...com/5605930.pdf]


I don't know how much more thorough I can possibly be. I find all of this evidence, as well as the moving patient testimonies, to be extremely compelling.

Edited by weed:myantidrug, 12 January 2012 - 05:39 PM.


#13
MelT

MelT

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 5,199 posts

Hope you respond to this.


I'm right here. :)

Your mail didn't answer any of the concerns regarding the validity of Burzynski's work, his lack of qualifications, or the fact that he's fleecing vulnerable people out of thousands of dollars to take part in a badly run trial for an unproven medicine that costs a few dollars a dose. His behaviour is unacceptable, and his findings disputable until he comes up with proper tests and a study of the data they produce.

To imply that the rigorous testing of research in an accepted scientific way is somehow wrong or unjust is beyond hope. Wanting to prove things, properly, is wrong? What he does and how he does it should be scritinised in exactly the same way as every other piece of scientific evidence is, he has no immunity to common sense.

Everything else you've written about the FDA and who does what in your post above is meaningless. HIM BAD MAN. A low-life who takes money from people who's kids have cancer, and who's office threatens to sue bloggers who badmouth him.

MelT

#14
weed:myantidrug

weed:myantidrug

    Philadelphia Collins

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 560 posts

I'm right here. :)

Your mail didn't answer any of the concerns regarding the validity of Burzynski's work, his lack of qualifications, or the fact that he's fleecing vulnerable people out of thousands of dollars to take part in a badly run trial for an unproven medicine that costs a few dollars a dose. His behaviour is unacceptable, and his findings disputable until he comes up with proper tests and a study of the data they produce.

To imply that the rigorous testing of research in an accepted scientific way is somehow wrong or unjust is beyond hope. Wanting to prove things, properly, is wrong? What he does and how he does it should be scritinised in exactly the same way as every other piece of scientific evidence is, he has no immunity to common sense.

Everything else you've written about the FDA and who does what in your post above is meaningless. HIM BAD MAN. A low-life who takes money from people who's kids have cancer, and who's office threatens to sue bloggers who badmouth him.

MelT


How can you defend the FDA on one hand yet acknowledge that it is misleading with its policies on marijuana? Why don't you think that it's actions were suspicious? 5 grand juries with no indictments. The Congressional Oversight Committee wrote a letter to the Attorney General documenting this appalling continued harassment of Burzynski by the FDA. I provided you with a link which you apparently overlooked: http://www.burzynski..._Reno_Abuse.pdf

The way the court proceedings played out, the FDA's actions, the testimonies given, and the judge's verdicts are essential for understanding the motives behind his indictment and the controversy surrounding it. The effectiveness of antineoplastons are NOT what the trials were about. That is a fact.

Read this transcript from the National Cancer Institute, published in 1991: http://www.burzynski...efaceLetter.pdf

It states "It is the opinion of the site visit team that antitumor activity was documented in this best case series"

The United States Governments' attempted patents on antineoplastons confirm its efficacy, and acknowledge radiation and chemotherapy's obvious harmfulness. “The neoplastic conditions treatable by this method include neuroblastoma, leukemia, myelodisplasia, acute glioma, prostate cancer, breast cancer, melanoma, lung cancer, medulloblastoma, and lymphoma” to name a few. [pg 49] They also point out how Antineoplastons can also be used as a cancer preventative. [pg 56]
[SOURCE: US Patent #5,605,930 pg 1, 49, 56, 71 http://www.freepaten...om/5605930.pdf]

I also provided you with the transcript from a National Cancer Institute employee who testified on Burzynski's behalf, citing the effectiveness of the therapy.

Also here is another certified Radiation Oncologists' testimony to the effectiveness. http://www.burzynski...etterToTSMB.pdf

Why would the FDA approve clinical trials if it did not see any effectiveness in the therapy?

To imply that the rigorous testing of research in an accepted scientific way is somehow wrong or unjust is beyond hope.

I in no way implied this. I'm implying that there had been unnecessary and egregious legal action against Burzynski, which has all failed. Stop putting words in my mouth. And I would appreciate it if you actually read these links instead of writing them off. They are the evidence I'm presenting. And please address the specific questions I'm asking, thanks.

Edited by weed:myantidrug, 12 January 2012 - 07:38 PM.


#15
MelT

MelT

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 5,199 posts

How can you defend the FDA on one hand yet acknowledge that it is misleading with its policies on marijuana? Edit..Why would the FDA approve clinical trials if it did not see any effectiveness in the therapy?


Please read my above response. I don't care about what the FDA does and what you think they've done to wrong this man. All I care about are the questions I asked earlier and which you have side-stepped completely in your reply, twice.

Let me say again what my concerns are and you can tell me why any sane person should pay this man money for an unproven treatment. I asked you these same questions two posts ago and you sidestepped them then too. Why is that? Why are you so desperate to turn this into a case of wrongly charged man against the bad ol' medical world? I know why - because he doesn't have what he originally said he had and he can't produce any convincing data to support himself. So instead he puts stories around about having 'FDA approval' to go to stage three to add to his propaganda. It's pretty transparent to be honest.

I say for the second time "..Your mail didn't answer any of the concerns regarding the validity of Burzynski's work, his lack of qualifications, or the fact that he's fleecing vulnerable people out of thousands of dollars to take part in a badly run trial for an unproven medicine that costs a few dollars a dose. His behavior is unacceptable, and his findings disputable until he comes up with proper tests and a study of the data they produce...."

Everything else you've written about the FDA and who does what in your post above is meaningless. HIM BAD MAN. A low-life who takes money from people who's kids have cancer, and who's office threatens to sue bloggers who badmouth him...."


"...I think it's telling when Dr. Richard J Crout, the FDA Bureau of Drugs Director, is quoted as saying "when anyone other than large institutions ask permission to conduct clinical trials, you want harsh regulations, sometimes we say it is proper to hinder research, and once these guidelines were adopted, the FDA would consider itself “bound” by them. [SOURCE: Cancer Letter 3/12/76 pg 3..."


As if any sane person would have it any other way? Large institutions no more get a free reign with clinical trials than anyone else. If the theory is still under trial and being carried out by people with a less than rigorous approach then obviously you want very strict regulations governing its administration. Seriously, why is that wrong?

And I would appreciate it if you actually read these links instead of writing them off. They are the evidence I'm presenting. And please address the specific questions I'm asking, thanks.


Sadly, as I keep trying to say, they're evidence about something that doesn't concern me - the man does. I've read all your links and more, thanks, I'm not impressed. Now read mine, then, purely as a matter of courtesy as I asked first, answer my questions regarding his conduct, above, both moral and scientific. Though when it does come to my turn, you do have to realise that I still don't care how much you think the world has it in for him, he is not to be trusted with people's lives.

Anyone reading this, please, do not take my word for it. Follow the links I've provided that lead to the true and full story behind this treatment and the way his business is growing. Spread the word and stop people with terminally-ill children fund-raising for treatments with him that have no proven worth. $5 drugs at some $400 a shot in a £200,000 clinical trial that other companies would not dream of charging for. It's reprehensible.

Finally, I find your response strangely hostile when I said at the very start that I had approached this openly and honestly and with the hope of finding it was true. My research into this was unbiased and even optimistic. I didn't hold you responsible for the biased content at all, as I said. Now suddenly you're arguing vehemently about court cases and persecution, for a man who's video you posted simply because it fascinated you. Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Could I ask if you have any connection to the said 'scientist' or his 'treatments'?

MelT

#16
weed:myantidrug

weed:myantidrug

    Philadelphia Collins

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 560 posts

Please read my above response. I don't care about what the FDA does and what you think they've done to wrong this man.


The whole documentary is about the conflict between Burzynski and the FDA. The entire point is to show that there was unprecedented legal action taken against him, in spite of promising signs for this new therapy.

I'm implying that there had been unnecessary and egregious legal action against Burzynski, which has all failed.


The court ruled that he was breaking no laws in the state of Texas, and despite being legally justified in treating patients he faced an extraordinary amount of harassment and legal trouble, where he was either always found not guilty, or was acquitted. He has hundreds of patients who testify in court as success stories and are confused as to why their doctor is facing such trouble. Are you discounting all of these patients?

The FDA currently puts out misinformation and propaganda against marijuana, citing outdated and biased medical findings. It seems possible that this is a similar situation. I provided you with a Congressional Oversight Committee letter to the Attorney General exposing the FDA's clear abuse of the legal system, and suspicious actions towards Burzynski.

Let me say again what my concerns are and you can tell me why any sane person should pay this man money for an unproven treatment.


The side effects of chemotherapy and radiation can do severe physical damage to children with the fatal brain tumors. Why wouldn't any sane person look for an alternative, or non toxic option for their child? Radiation or chemotherapy in severe cases of brain tumors will only help to prolong life-span temporarily. There are hundreds of patients who were given month long life-expectancies, with or without treatment, that have turned to this new therapy. They have testified in court that they have been helped by Burzynski. The first interview of the video is a perfect example.


Your mail didn't answer any of the concerns regarding the validity of Burzynski's work


I provided you with a document from the National Cancer Institute that recorded anti tumor activity with Dr. Burzynski's therapy.

I provided you with United States Patents that say antineoplastons show efficiency in treating and preventing cancer.

I provided you with testimony from two separate reputable and certified radiation oncologists. One who worked for the National Cancer Institute.

The real question is that why, in the face of these findings, patient testimony, and the fact that it is legal for him to treat patients, has he faced such a remarkable amount of legal action? That is what the documentary is about.

his lack of qualifications, or the fact that he's fleecing vulnerable people out of thousands of dollars to take part in a badly run trial for an unproven medicine that costs a few dollars a dose.


I've read up on the questionable details surrounding his medical education, however I feel as if that isn't central to the story. Even if he is somehow less qualified than other people does that discount the validity of his idea? Whether or not this treatment helps fight cancer is really the only pertinent question. I've listed many reputable sources that suggest it does. He isn't breaking any laws by administering the treatment. So why has he faced an unusual amount of unfounded legal harassment? (all of which has failed). Even if he is "over-charging" people for this new treatment that doesn't mean he is a "low-life". Maybe if it was backed by a large pharmaceutical company the price would be lower. With so much legal action taken against him it makes him seem unattractive to business.

"I never have and never will approve a new drug to an individual, but only to a large pharmaceutical firm with unlimited finances."


The problem with this policy is that a private company which produces its own drug has an incredibly hard, if not impossible time getting approved, even if it shows effectiveness.

Could I ask if you have any connection to the said 'scientist' or his 'treatments'?


I have family members who have been affected by cancer. I think anyone can empathize with patients who are given only months to live, with or without devastating radiation and chemotherapy. I'm fascinated by this new mans' discovery but appalled by the unbelievable amount of legal harassment it has faced.

And I apologize, I don't mean to come off so hostile, I just get emotionally invested in my opinions.

Edited by weed:myantidrug, 13 January 2012 - 03:24 AM.


#17
MelT

MelT

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 5,199 posts
Please read my above response. I don't care about what the FDA does and what you think they've done to wrong this man.


The whole documentary is about the conflict between Burzynski and the FDA. The entire point is to show that there was unprecedented legal action taken against him, in spite of promising signs for this new therapy.

The actions against him are far from unnecessary, he has flouted the law and scientific protocols for years, scamming people out of millions of dollars in the process. The whole FDA game is a blind to what is actually taking place.

The court ruled that he was breaking no laws in the state of Texas, and despite being legally justified in treating patients he faced an extraordinary amount of harassment and legal trouble, where he was either always found not guilty, or was acquitted.

And this ruling was over-turned and the good Mr Burzynski is about to be charged again for the same misdeeds, see below.

He has hundreds of patients who testify in court as success stories and are confused as to why their doctor is facing such trouble. Are you discounting all of these patients?...The first interview of the video is a perfect example.

I certainly am. Most are anecdotal apart from a handful of dubious cases he keeps trotting out with no data to support it. The Burzynski movie lies through its teeth. And are you going to tell me that all those people now coming forward who have been ripped off by the clinic are liars?

Burzynski The Movie: Does It Prove The Efficacy of Antineoplastons Against Cancer? « Anaximperator blog

His other successes are due to the fact that he uses his own treatment with a heavy mixture of recognised chemo' and immunotherpy drugs at the same time as he administers them. Something he has neglected to tell many of his patients
one of the reasons he's back in court this year. He also doesn't tell them that he is charging way over price for these drugs. Isn't it strange that as the man who decries 'Big Pharma' as evil, he's happy to buy and resell their drugs at a profit to treat his patients?

The side effects of chemotherapy and radiation can do severe physical damage to children with the fatal brain tumors. Why wouldn't any sane person look for an alternative, or non toxic option for their child? Radiation or chemotherapy in severe cases of brain tumors will only help to prolong life-span temporarily.

A little confusion there:) In the case of 'fatal brain tumours', all treatments can only lengthen life-span temporarily, including his. Chemo and radiation therapy saves lives every single day in patients with a variety of cancers. Chemotherapy and radiation can do damage, certainly, but not always - why cite only terminally ill children with brain cancer?
The difference between chemo and radiation therapy is that they are proven to work, Burzynski's treatment isn't, so citing them in the same breath is pointless.


. If Chemo is so awful then perhaps you need to ask Mr B, why he uses it on a regular basis at his clinic?

I provided you with a document from the National Cancer Institute that recorded anti tumor activity with Dr. Burzynski's therapy.

No, what you provided me with was a the partial result of a clinical test which was not completed. The NCI still says that his treatment is not approved and needs further investigation and access to the clinical data, which Burzynski won't give because he didn't have proper protocols in place to govern his studies. It DID show promise, but due to Mr B's shenanigans, it all stopped there.

The full story for those who are interested are here, as told by the NCI itself:

The US government-funded National Cancer Institute (NCI) spent nearly a million dollars on an early-phase clinical trial of the treatment in the early 1990s. But the early results were not promising and the trial ended in disarray – a saga documented in this fascinating social science paper.
Although neither Burzynski nor the NCI is entirely blameless in the collapse of the trials, it is perplexing that since then thousands of patients have allegedly been treated with antineoplastons, yet there is not enough data to make a solid case for their effectiveness. And – more importantly – based on the evidence presented by Burzynski, the vast majority of the scientific and medical community remains unconvinced.
As well as the doubts around the effectiveness of antineoplaston treatment, the whole manner in which the clinic is offering treatment is unusual.
Antineoplaston therapy is not licensed as a cancer treatment by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), so the Burzynski Clinic is offering the treatment only as part of a clinical trial. However, patients are being asked to pay many tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege of being on the trial – a highly unusual situation in clinical research, and certainly not the norm for UK trials.
Furthermore, the scientific community expects the results of clinical trials to be published in the medical literature. As far as we can tell, Burzynski’s team have not published any results since 2006, which raises questions about exactly what kind of clinical trials they are running, and when we might expect to see the detailed analysis of their results.

So, as the NCI is less than happy with MR B and his work unproven, we can safely say that using them as a reason to say that his treatment works is useless.
I provided you with United States Patents that say antineoplastons show efficiency in treating and preventing cancer.


You provided me with a test patent of a claim of efficacy. I could take out a patent on the idea that eggs stop cancer, but it wouldn't validate it as an idea until the treatment is proven.

I provided you with testimony from two separate reputable and certified radiation oncologists. One who worked for the National Cancer Institute.
With no before and after data, and Burzynski's self-created criteria for success and failure behind them, I see nothing in their stories that would indicate that it was Burzynski's drugs - and not the raft of other approved medicines and therapies given - that were responsible. Can you assure me that these patients only received antineoplastones in their treatment?

his lack of qualifications, or the fact that he's fleecing vulnerable people out of thousands of dollars to take part in a badly run trial for an unproven medicine that costs a few dollars a dose.

I've read up on the questionable details surrounding his medical education, however I feel as if that isn't central to the story.

Are you serious? How could it not be? He has no background in cancer research, has fabricated qualifications (now deciding to call himself 'professor' in Poland without right), will not follow scientific protocols or make full data known. That isn't important?

Do you know how much he personally makes out of those who visit his 'clinic' on a daily basis simply by assessing them for suitability for the trials? Tens of thousands of dollars. How much does he make if we also include those who do get on them? In one year alone he earned well over 6 MILLION dollars.
Even if he is somehow less qualified than other people does that discount the validity of his idea?

Of course it does, because it shows that he's devious and a liar. I wouldn't think any sane person would want to be treated by someone who feels the need to do that.

Whether or not this treatment helps fight cancer is really the only pertinent question.

Absolutely, and until he allows proper access and proper testing we'll never know.I've listed many reputable sources that suggest it does.

And I can list as many more reputable sources (including doctors, oncologists and his former patients - at least those who aren't now dead) that say it doesn't, and that patients are treated shoddily by his so-called clinic. Please read here for some storied from a number of people who fell foul of him: Home | Burzynski ScamBurzynski Scam and what his appraisal costs them.

Also, look here for just one of many appraisals of his work on cancer and data processing: Ministry of Truth » Blog Archive » Beware the Cancer Quack

He isn't breaking any laws by administering the treatment. So why has he faced an unusual amount of unfounded legal harassment? (all of which has failed).

He has broken laws and all cases against him have not failed. As you must know, he only avoided prosecution last time by the skin of his teeth and his defence and appeal has now been overturned:

"...A
full copy of the TMB’s Complaint (pdf – 85k)* and, as you might well expect, things aren’t quite as Burzynski’s supporters would have everyone believe.) * update – source: Texas Medical Board licensee register (Burzynski’s reg no. is D9377, click the ‘view orders’ button on his profile)..." Ministry of Truth » Blog Archive » Texas Medical Board vs Burzynski

He is about to be tried again for:

"...
et me end here with this comment regarding his forthcoming case and some of the charges against him:

"..
2. Patient B:

a. In approximately March of 2003, Patient B presented to Respondent with a diagnosis of esthesioneuroblastoma.
b. Respondent prescribed sodium phenylbutyrate, an immunotherapy agent that is not approved by the FDA for the treatment of esthesioneuroblastoma and that does not meet the FDA’s regulations for off-label use.
c. Follow-up magnetic resonance imaging (“MRI”) scans were conducted in approximately August and December of 2003, and March of 2004, which showed progressive disease. Patient B was continued on phenylbutyrate during this 11 -month time period, and was not sufficiently informed about the drug’s lack of efficacy on her disease.

So, Patient B has a rare form of cancer which affects the nasal cavity of which only 945 cases have been reported in literature since its discovery in the 1920s. Burzynski again prescribed sodium phenylbutyrate, off label and outside the FDA’s regulations, and continued to prescribe the drug for 11 months despite three MRI scans which shows that it was having no effect whatsoever while allegedly failing to give his patient adequate information about the drugs’ lack of efficacy.

This leads up to the specifics of the charges against Burzynski, which run as follows:

- failure to practice medicine in an acceptable professional manner consistent with public health and welfare;
- failure to meet the standard of care;
- negligence in performing medical services;
- failure to use professional diligence;
- failure to safeguard against potential complications;
- failure to disclose reasonably foreseeable side effects of a procedure or treatment;
- failure to disclose reasonable alternative treatments to a proposed procedure or treatment;
- failure to obtain informed consent from the patient or other person authorized by law to consent to treatment on the patient’s behalf before performing tests, treatments, or procedures; and
- prescription or administration of a drug in a manner that is not in compliance with Chapter 200 of this title (relating to Standards for Physicians Practicing Complementary and Alternative Medicine) or, that is either not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in human beings or does not meet the standards for off-label use, unless an exemption has otherwise been obtained from the FDA.

And the Texas Medical Board aren’t finished there because, for afters, they’re also throwing in:

- unprofessional or dishonorable conduct that is likely to deceive or defraud the public or injure the public;
- providing medically unnecessary services to a patient or submitting a billing statement to a patient or a third party payer that the licensee knew or should have known was improper. “Improper” means the billing statement is false, fraudulent, misrepresents services provided, or otherwise does not meet professional standards.

Not to mention breaches of the Texas Health and Safety Code, prescribing/administering a non-therapeutic treatment, dispensing dangerous drugs in a manner inconsistent with public health and welfare and improper billing practices.

Moreover, it seems that much of the support that Burzynski has been getting from the ***.med community is largely predicated on the idea that his unproven antineoplaston therapy isn’t chemotherapy and doesn’t have side effects, and yet here we can see him prescribing quite an array of conventional meds, including a chemotherapy agent, alongside a conventional drug which appears to be the actual source of the AS2-1 element of his supposed wonder drug.

All of which really doesn’t sound very alternative to me, given that every single drug listed in the TMB’s complaint is very definitely the product of dear old BigPharma..."


[B]Even if he is "over-charging" people for this new treatment that doesn't mean he is a "low-life". Maybe if it was backed by a large pharmaceutical company the price would be lower. With so much legal action taken against him it makes him seem unattractive to business.


If this were not a public forum I would call him far more than that. Excrement is higher up the food chain than he is. There's no need to put over charging in inverted commas, that would imply that it's not the case. One drug that he sells for hundreds of dollars a shot he can buy over the counter for less than $5 a kilo. A kilo will get him hundreds of such shots. Worse - He also buys, resells and administersregular Big Pharma chemicals and over-charges for them too. Please tell me why it's acceptable to charge poor, desperate people way over the odds for drugs they could buy elsewhere at a fraction of the cost?

[B]And I apologize, I don't mean to come off so hostile, I just get emotionally invested in my opinions.


Not at all. Can I ask again if you have any connection at all to him, his clinic, treatment, website or institute?

MelT

Edited by MelT, 14 January 2012 - 02:14 PM.


#18
Brenjin

Brenjin

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 2,801 posts
Antineoplastons are only a part of dr burzynski's treatment.

He Pushes a raw vegan diet as well which has proven benefits.

Maybe he's confused with the antineoplastons if your right melt, and I have no idea I haven't looked into that part like you have, but he's not just doing these things to make money.

The NCI doesn't recognize the true benefits of such a diet and treats it in a similar manner to his antineoplastons. And obviously they only recently started to recognize cannabis' potential.

So it might just be a little too conspiracyie for him and he thinks they're stopping his antineoplastons for the same reason they don't recognize diet

#19
MelT

MelT

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 5,199 posts
Stanislaw Burzynski: bad medicine, a bad movie and bad PR
Dr. Burzynski and the cult of personality of the “brave maverick cancer doctor”
What dr. Stanislaw Burzynski doesn’t want you to know about antineoplastons
Hope or False Hope

#20
MelT

MelT

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 5,199 posts

Antineoplastons are only a part of dr burzynski's treatment.


Now they are, initially they weren't. He's added a variety of alternative and proven therapies to what he originally offered. None of that in any way validates the unproven aspects of his treatments. But people with dying children are being charged hundreds of thousands of dollars by him for a mix of regular treatments they could get elsewhere, and his own costly nonsense. That's taking advantage of people who are in a very sad position.

He Pushes a raw vegan diet as well which has proven benefits. The NCI doesn't recognize the true benefits of such a diet and treats it in a similar manner to his antineoplastons. And obviously they only recently started to recognize cannabis' potential.


I'm a vegetarian and a great believer in it, but him promoting healthy eating is not the issue. As a vegan for many years, I would agree completely with their decision that a raw vegan food was always necessary and provided the benefits claimed.

Maybe he's confused with the antineoplastons if your right melt, and I have no idea I haven't looked into that part like you have, but he's not just doing these things to make money.


Then he's not doing a very good job:). He made over $6, 000, 000 + in personal profits from the clinic in one year.

So it might just be a little too conspiracyie for him and he thinks they're stopping his antineoplastons for the same reason they don't recognize diet


The FDA and his supposed angst against them is a blind to the real story - that his centre already makes millions of dollars a year for him just doing clinical trials. He needs to do nothing other than what he has for the last 25 years and more; start trials and then abandon them half way through. Something he's done, I believe, 106 times now. As long as he carries out 'trials' and charges like a wounded bull, he can make a wonderful living for the rest of his life and be seen as a hero at the same time. And that bad ol' FDA, well...

The FDA line is a blind, just what he wants everyone to focus on, it helps sell his products. Look at the man: he has zero integrity. Nobody charges for a placement on a clinical trials, especially for products which are still under testing, no matter how promising they may look.

Patients should also be informed by him as to what chemicals - his own or proprietary - they are being given. A patient has the right to shop around to find out where to get drugs at the cheapest cost, not be given drugs without knowledge at an inflated price.

Take a good look at all aspects of this story if you should get time, it's bigger than it would seem.

MelT




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users