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
]—still the board had no case—which prompted them to file a second amended complaint in 1992
]. 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
] —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."
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.