Cancer Cure Here All Along?

In a Congressional Committee Hearing in 1996, Sgt. Rick Schiff of the San Francisco Police Department, who holds the highest Medal of Honor for bravery, told the chilling tale of the death of his daughter and the soon-to-be death of her identical twin sister. Schiff spoke out that day, against the government’s opposition of, through organizations like the FDA and The Medical Board, the use of an experimental cancer treatment. Schiff knew that some people did not want the truth to be released to the public—that the cure for cancer had been here all along.

In 1967, Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski had begun his journey of curing cancer that would ultimately change medicine forever, but not before bringing about an astonishing truth. Burzynski began his career at the age of only 24, when he obtained his M.D. at the top of his class, from the Medical Academy in Lublin, Poland. That same year, he made a discovery that medical professionals have been seeking for a very long time. Burzynski had stumbled upon a strain of peptides normally found in human blood and urine that play a deciding factor in whether or not a person has cancer.

The following year, Burzynski obtained his Ph.D. in biochemistry and further studied his new findings. From 1970 to 1977, while working as a researcher and Assistant Professor at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, TX, Burzynski’s research was sponsored and partially funded by the National Cancer Institute. All along the way, Burzynski had made major advancements here in his cure for cancer.

Cancer cells are already within the body, usually in a dormant state. However, Burzynski discovered that people who lack these peptides usually have activated cancer cells and those who have plenty of these peptides do not. The human body contains two categories of genes that allow cancer to grow–Oncogenes and Tumor Suppressor genes. In people who have cancer, a higher level of their Oncogenes are “switched on” and a higher level of their Tumor Suppressor genes are “switched off.”

After discovering this, Burzynski found a way to extract the peptides from healthy human blood and urine and created his own formula called antineoplastons. Antineoplastons target the specific genes that allow cancer to flourish, working on almost 100 different gene types. The true benefit of these antineoplastons lies in the fact that some patients do not need to remain on them for the rest of their lives, because they eventually cure the body of cancer permanently.

Burzynski put his discovery to good use by opening up his own clinic in 1977 and offering people suffering from numerous types of cancer, even terminal, his cure and a second chance at life. Dr. Burzynski has since treated over 8,000 patients with cancer at his clinic in Houston, Texas. Despite his best efforts, the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners would attempt to intervene, ensuring that many other people suffering with cancer would unfortunately die before knowing that the cure had been here all along.

In 1986, the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners requested that Dr. Burzynski submit proof that his treatments did not harm any of his patients, which he did. In 1988, the board finally responded to Burzynski’s research submission by claiming that he was violating a fictitious law and threatened to revoke his medical license. In 1990, then again, in 1992, the board continued to file complaints against the doctor for reasons that were not plausible. After some time, 60 of Dr. Burzynski’s patients eventually petitioned that the board leave him alone and allow him to continue to research as well as treat people with cancer.

Eventually, in 1993, this case went to trial, where Judge Earl Corbitt ruled in the favor of Dr. Burzynski, stating that his cure and methods for administering it were safe and effective. Since it was later discovered that the FDA was in fact pressuring the Texas Medical Board to pursue these court cases, upon failing yet again, the FDA eventually stepped up the fight against Burzynski. In an effort to ensure their success, the FDA raided the Burzynski Clinic several times and confiscated all of his patients medical records, which were essential to aiding him in successfully curing these patients.

Dr. Burzynski had continued to fight the FDA, in hopes of stopping them from shutting down his clinic and ending his research. The FDA, which acts as practically a “gatekeeper” to the pharmaceutical companies, received backhanded fees of over half a billion dollars annually from them, worked relentlessly trying to suppress Burzynski’s cure for cancer. After numerous court hearings and despite their repeated attempts, due to public and Congressional pressure, the FDA had no choice but to accept and approve Dr. Burzynski’s cure.

In a recent article on Oct. 24, 2014, it stated that the FDA gave the Burzynski Research Institute permission to conduct an open trial administering the latest version of their antineoplastons in patients under the age of three, who suffer from a brain tumor known as diffuse intrinsic brainstem glioma (DIBG).

There is no doubt that there may be forces in this world that try to control and limit certain things that may potentially better the public in the name of greed. However, it is Dr. Burzynski’s, as well as many others, belief that the pharmaceutical companies, through the FDA, have been trying to stop his research and treatments in fear of a future where people no longer need medication in the form of their products. Thus, allowing Burzynski to commandeer all of the profits. For those who are still skeptical about a cure for most cancers being here all along, it is highly recommended that they watch the documentary Burzynski, which is available for free via YouTube and in the link below.

Opinion By Robert Masucci

Burzynski, The Movie
The Burzynski Clinic
USA Today–Burzynski Trial Reopens
USA Today–Who Is Stanislaw Burzynski
National Cancer Institute
FDA Burzynski Documents
Interview with Sgt. Rick Schiff 2012
Gnomes National News
The Cancer Industry (book)
Photo by SbrandnerGNU License

59 Responses to "Cancer Cure Here All Along?"

  1. Jordan Brock   December 3, 2014 at 12:58 pm

  2. Jim   November 21, 2014 at 11:42 am

    If you are dying and someone said this may work, why would you not try it. These people have nothing to lose. Chemo and radiation WILL kill you. At best it will only give you a little more (very low quality) time. I guess my point is, get off their back and let people try something. It is their life! No one can defend the damage done by accepted treatments. Why do the feds and science feel they have the right to tell a person with nothing to lose that they can’t try whatever is available. I would eat horse crap if I were dying of cancer and there was any evidence that it MAY cure me.

    • Guy Chapman   November 21, 2014 at 12:14 pm

      You’ve put your finger on precisely the problem: yes, if someoen is dying and someone says “this may work” they may well try it, even if there is no good evidence it will work and no reason to suppose it should.

      How much worse, then, when the person with the treatment that might, but probably won’t, work, says it is very likely to work and usually does work, even though he’s failed, in four decades, to persuade any significant body of his fellow doctors that it’s either plausible or effective.

      In the UK and Australia this would be illegal, in fact.

      Cancer patients are very vulnerable. They need protection form predatory quacks. The price for that is that people who sincerely believe they are not predatory quacks, have to actually prove it. Burzynski has spent rather a long time working on a body of evidence that strongly suggests he is a predatory quack. And sadly people like Ric help him along by making public claims for effect that Burzynski cannot, for legal reasons (and ethical ones, but there’s no sign he cares much about that).

      • Jim   November 21, 2014 at 12:44 pm

        Guy I hear what you are saying but it is still the choice of the (adult) patient that is dying to try whatever they want. They are going to die. I will guarantee they have researched possible treatments. Anyone with eyes can see both sides of this treatment. If they die anyway then at least they made their own choice. People are trying to be over protective of patients that are dying and they have no right to deny that patient that choice. UK and Australia are socialist countries without the freedom we enjoy. How many people buy lotto tickets, go to palm readers and things that I personally find to be ridiculous crap but they have the freedom to choose to do this because we live in a free country (for now).

        • Guy Chapman   November 21, 2014 at 2:03 pm

          Jim, that choice is not made in a vacuum. Even leaving aside the fact that Burzynski is best known for targeting children not adults, any choice has to be a properly informed one.

          Burzynski charges enormous sums and his patients suffer significant toxicity. Patients spend their last months in misery, and often leave their families destitute after paying the bill. It is perfectly reasonable to demand that he proves safety and efficacy before making a profit from his treatment, precisely as every other pharmaceutical manufacturer must. He seems to disagree: his belief in his own work is such that he has consistently failed to follow the normal path of any treatment towards widespread use.

          If antineoplastons work, he’s deprived the world of a cancer treatment that could have been used by every single oncologist, and he’s set back the cause of cancer treatment by easily two decades. If they don’t work, he has made a very substantial amount of money selling a bogus product. Neither of these is good.

          To put this in perspective, replace the smilin, avuncular face of Stanislaw Burzynski with a drug company executive from any other manufacturer of pharmaceuticals, living in exactly the same gated mansion, surrounded by exactly the same cadre of family members and worshipful acolytes. Does the patient still get to choose?

          And if the patient were in possession of the full facts, including the fact that most people die well within the prognosis given by their real oncologists prior to seeing Burzynski, and along the way they suffer debilitating side effects and hand over most of their personal net worth, would they still make the same choice?

          Don’t forget, Burzynski sold this treatment for a long time before the FDA caught up with him first time round. He was selling a claimed cancer treatment with absolutely no clinical trials whatsoever. All that changed after 1996 was that he enrolled people on trials his own lawyer admits were a sham, and carried on business as usual. It’s pretty clear he never had any intention to finish and publish the trials. How is that defensible? He’s gone out of his way to deprive people of the one critical piece of information that would allow a properly informed decision: published trial results, that can be checked and replicated by others. Is that OK just because the patients were going to die anyway?

          Would you let Bernie Madoff loose on terminally ill patients just because they might want to spend their last months in pursuit of an illusory fortune?

          • Ric Schiff   November 21, 2014 at 4:40 pm

            Well “Guy”, once again you have made a litany of accusations which are untrue. Hopefully the average person will research your statements and that will end your nonsense. In closing, BRIs primary patient load is adults, I took my child to him and had phenomenal results…… He never called me to come. What’s your thought, he calls them on the phone? They go because people like me refer them! People with actual experience.

            85% of Dr. Burzynski’s patients are terminally ill and have already failed “conventional” treatments. That means that their oncologist has left them to die without any hope of a cure. Any of those people walking around today disproved most of your nonsense, so all anyone has to do is go to and meet the patients to see you are intentionally misleading people. They are on was well. In fact many have made recent videos for viewers. Is it your conclusion that they are lying , were they all spontaneous remissions? How unscientific of you…..

            Are our referrals scientific? Of course not….. That’s what the FDA process is for. Are you claiming that BRI is not fully in compliance with the current FDA criteria/ clinical trial process? That would be liable wouldn’t it Guy… Bob, whichever skeptic you really are.

            It’s always interesting to see you skeptics arguing for people to go home and die (after their oncologist has lined his pockets), instead of searching and legitately evaluating options. Of course if you did that; ANP would end up being the best option in many cases (not all). Better in fact than their original treatment……… and for whatever reason you can’t have that.

            All side effects for ANP are listed on under Q and A. These are the FDA approved listing so if you want to lie about that, you’ll have to take it up with them…. Just as you are in blatant conflict with them as to Dr. Burzynski’s clinical trial results, for some reason you are unable to read that literature?

            I guess that’s why the FDA ignored your pleas to black list the Doctor and his treatment? They certainly don’t seem to respect you, your opinions or your friends very much do they ?

          • Guy Chapman   November 22, 2014 at 3:52 pm

            Submission issue. Apologies if this is a duplicate response.

            Ric, there is no need to use scare quotes. My name is, and always has been, Guy.

            As you should know form your work, you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

            If you, in the course of your work, called someone a liar in public on the basis that their mainstream interpretation of the facts was different from your quixotic one, and you, but not they, had a vested interest in the interpretation, you’d be in a bit of trouble, wouldn’t you? If you swore on oath that something was true, and the published records including from Federal inspections showed that it was not, you’d be in trouble, wouldn’t you?

            That’s the position you’re in.

            Of the 61 registered trials up to the middle of this year, not a single one has been completed and properly published. Not one. That is a fact. The publications list does not rebut that fact. Medline does not rebut that fact. You could refute this by citing a DOI, but none exists. A partially published trial is not a completed and fully published trial.

            Many of the publications on the clinic website are indeed worthless: conference sessions not subject to peer review and so on. Not one provides sufficient detail for a proper independent appraisal of the treatment. That is a fact, not an opinion.

            I understand that you desperately want the Burzynski narrative to be true. Sadly, the great tragedy of science is the slaying of beautiful hypothesis by ugly fact.

            I have no confidence that the US will shut Burzynski down despite his atrocious and unethical behaviour. I do hope that when he retires his quackery will vanish. But long experience of cancer quackery indicates that fake cancer “cures” are harder to kill than zombies in movies. Certainly harder to kill than children with brain cancer.

      • Ric Schiff   November 21, 2014 at 4:04 pm

        That was one big load of twisted nonsense Guy. Including your belief that people who are ill are unable to evaluate the risks and potential of available treatment . Once again, you covet a completely dishonest predatory system of cancer treatment clearly meant to be profitable to Pharma while disseminating false information about legitimate treatments. Especially in light of the Internet. Most sick patients are extremely cautious, so much so that they neglect to investigate the treatments recommended by oncologist !

        Please point out one false claim that I have made? Are you denying the results of ANP with respect to Dr. Burzynski’s FDA approved Phase II Clinical studies on the DIPG? The only documented complete responses (cures) ever…….

        Not wanting something to be true is not the same as

        • Scott   November 22, 2014 at 1:51 am

          Most patients don’t have the background knowledge to evaluate clinical papers and trials regarding treatments – they can follow summary papers comparing different treatments or overall reviews of a treatment. Problem is that since the lack of even the original trials which the summary or review papers could be based upon — this leaves a patient almost entirely left to the mercy of the Salesman selling the product as to what the product can do – alway a Big Red Flag.

    • Scott   November 22, 2014 at 1:33 am

      Nobody is stopping the patients from trying things.
      They are trying to prevent a Dr. from marketing treatments without the evidence to support such claims and also to prevent the Dr. from administering such claims.

      The reason the mainstream treatments are used and recommended is because there is evidence that it does help prolong life, improve the quality of the life left. You and others claiming these standard treatments don’t work and just kill – does not make it true, no matter how many times you keep making the baseless claims.

  3. the truth   November 18, 2014 at 9:14 pm

    people need to understand the post against Burzynski these people are paid to lie and talk down about him do mind there evil ways we all know he found the cure and i know for a fact cause i treated myself with his cure 4 years ago and have had no sign of cancer since so all you paid trolls need to go take there pills and drink there fluoride and stfu

    • Scott   November 20, 2014 at 10:58 pm

      What evidence do you have of paid shills out to get Dr. B?

  4. Mary   November 18, 2014 at 7:04 pm

    Just skimming through the comments is disheartening. So many commenting with willful ignorance & gullibility. Burzynski cured my nephew of late stage nonhodgkins AFTER he’d gone through all the torturous approved treatments & the been told there was nothing more they could do & he need to put his affairs in order because he would be dead very soon. Because of my nephew’s success with Burzynski they changed their policy to allow that treatment first. Before they would only allow Burzynski to treat that cancer after a patient exhausted traditional avenues first or he risked losing his license to practice medicine. Do your research people, Burzynski has written & published papers, has submitted plenty of evidence, has had his patents first tried to be bought & then stolen, they’ve then tried their best to discredit & put him out of business. If he was the quack they’re trying so hard to convince you of, he wouldn’t still be operating legally with his medical license intact within the USA. He’s spent tremendous time, resources & money to do so. Others like himself just gave up the fight & moved out of the country. My Nephew’s treatment cost under $40k, a fraction of his chemo & radiation treatments that his insurance covered. It only seems expensive because he had to pay out of pocket. How come people will get all full of indignation about what he charges while ignoring the outrageous costs & devastating damage from “approved” treatments that only end up eventually killing most patients, but not before bankrupting them & putting them through untold pain. Burzynski’s treatment worked despite my nephew’s severely weakened condition from the standard treatments & had no harmful effects, while the chemo destroyed his immune system, greatly reduced his lung capacity, made him sterile, & put him through so much needless suffering. There’s a reason doctors say they would not choose to undergo the very same treatments they recommend & administer themselves; they have seen the results firsthand. Also, as a side note, those published cure rates are deliberately deceiving. A great many of those counted as cured develop another usually more aggressive cancer as a result of the damage from chemo & radiation & die six or seven years later. That’s why they measure success rates the way they do. If you want to know the true cure rate, ask your doctor how many patients were still alive at year eight not six.

  5. Amanda   November 18, 2014 at 1:51 pm

    Ric, the use of your work title is not just irrelevant (can we say plea to authority) but completely unprofessional. Being a police officer is not equal to “scientist” and i wonder how your bosses would like knowing you are attempting to utilise your title in this way?

    I am also a fraud expert and nothing you have said indicates you know what it means. Your bias is crystal clear and your website displays the scientific credibility of a sesame street episode. There is NO scientific evidence to back up Burzynski’s claims, which is probably why he has never moved beyond clinical trial.

    • Sheila Jones   November 18, 2014 at 5:45 pm

      Amanda without a shadow of doubt Ric knows exactly what he is talking about as do I … It occurs to me that perhaps you are one of the group called ” the skeptics” if this is so your days of destroying the route to a genuine cure for cancer are definitely numbered

    • FrederickLowe   November 19, 2014 at 7:59 am

      All pharma drugs and treatments are not designed to cure disease. Pharma wants to control disease so you are dependent on the protocol and therefore forced to buy the drugs. See diabetes or ask yourself why with all of the funding is there no cure for cancer, ms, paralysis etc… As long as I’ve been alive Jerry Lewis raised hundreds of millions of dollars for Muscular Dystrophy. How’s that cure coming?

    • Ana   November 19, 2014 at 12:05 pm

      Right on Lt. Ric Schiff! As a policeman you are indeed the expert on Fraud.
      Warm cheers,

      • Ric Schiff   November 20, 2014 at 10:14 am

        Thank you!

    • Beverly Bee   November 19, 2014 at 12:40 pm

      You seem slightly crazy. Clearly, you don’t know anything about Burzynski. Bet you’re in the pharmaceutical industry, ay?

      • Guy Chapman   November 21, 2014 at 1:39 am

        It’s rather obvious that Amanda knows a lot about Burzynski that he would prefer be kept quiet, because it undermines his nicely profitable business selling an implausible and unproven cancer “cure” to desperate people who have nowhere else to go.

    • wendy   November 19, 2014 at 6:26 pm

      Obviously Mr. Chapman you must have only read what you wanted to read about the entire over 40 year history involved here. “They” suppressed evidence and had the Doctor in courtrooms continuously, had him thrown out of his practice..on and on…
      He’s still here…..

      • Guy Chapman   November 19, 2014 at 10:05 pm

        The irony is not lost on me. The truth here is that Burzynski has a treatment which is still, after nearly four decades, unproven. The only source for the claims of miracles, is Burzynski himself – and like a cheap stage psychic, this is based on ignoring the misses and scoring 100% for anything other than abject failure.

        Skepticism is the default in the scientific method. It is for Burzynski to prove his claims, and the small body of true believers notwithstanding, he has completely failed to do that. He seems to think that he is exempt form the normal process of medical science.

        How happy would you be if GlaxoSmithKline decided to market a cancer drug based on testimonials from people who have all had other treatments first, who all still seem to have the disease (or be dead), and whose stories are brought to you only through the offices of its marketing department?

        That is what is happening here. Ric was a director of the clinic until recently. All the claims you see come from the clinic either direct or through people like Merola, an advertising director whose previous credits include the Truther movie Zeitgeist (directed by his brother).

        This is so far short of the proper process of science that it’s not funny, and yet Burzynski’s fans ignore the obvious ties between his propagandists and the clinic, while claiming, on the basis of precisely no evidence whatsoever, that his critics are funded by “big pharma”.

        • Ric Schiff   November 20, 2014 at 10:52 am

          Come on Guy; the button on the website is marked “publications”. Press it so you can stop being absurd. There is more scientific proof of Burzynski’s ANP in the treatment of advanced brain tumors than any other treatment known. Show us the scientific proof for the current Standard of Care?

          You spend all your time arguing one side of the equation without addressing the other. That’s convenient for your argument but seriously neglectful of reality.

          Should there be a truely scientific evaluation of every drug available ? Absolutely ! Does that process legitately exist now? No. FDA approval is predominately a function of money sufficient to get through their severely overly bureaucratic process. Even the Pharmaceuticals acknowledge that! The miracle is that ANP has managed to get so far on its own merits inspite of the current approval process. Avastin was approved for use in brain tumors, given to thousands of patients and now the studies show that it actually shows no benefit to the patient.

          Why was ANP put on partial clinical hold? In large part because the FDA had no brain tumor expert on staff to properly evaluate patient response in the clinical trials. It took them 2 years to identify their mistakes. Two years that you and your friends used to malign the doctor and his treatment erroneously!

          Show us the science in the cancer industry Guy……we can show better science and empirical evidence at least in the example of advanced brain tumors!

          What are we asking for ? Funding and better research so that the full potential of ANP can be realized. Dr. Burzynski has always welcomed indepedant research ( see the Japanese clinical trial results under publications on our website), contrary to your incorrect statements!

          Why don’t you lobby for independent research and satisfy your own concerns? In the meantime, people are dying who could otherwise be saved because they don’t have access to ANP, and because people like you mislead them.

          • Guy Chapman   November 20, 2014 at 11:25 am

            Seriously, Ric? There was independent research, and it didn’t give the result Burzynski wanted, so he went down the path of pathological science. This much is blindingly obvious to anyone with intact critical faculties. 61 trials registered, zero completed and published. And the trials only started because Burzynski was illegally selling the unproven drug for profit without approval and knew it was the only way he could keep making money from selling his treatment.

            He has made literally millions from this treatment. Why should anyone else pay for research into something that doesn’t even have a plausible basis? No properly constituted, competent IRB would ever sanction this research on present evidence.

            I completely acknowledge that Burzynski believes his own PR, and is surrounded by a cult of personality where this is the norm. Step outside the bubble and the facts become rather painfully obvious. Reference cases who turn out to be dead. Claims that ischaemic necrosis is “response”. Adverse events ignored and not reported for years. Systematic misrepresentation of responses. Unnecessary tests. Unexplained changes of treatment. Blaming grieving parents when their children die. Sending people out broke and sick to be rescued by the local hospital and flown home by charity.

            Those things are well established facts. They are not good things.If you want to protect the reputation of your tin god, you’d be much better advised to get him to change his predatory practices and stop practising oncology until he’s board certified and actually understands how to read an MRI.

      • Scott   November 20, 2014 at 11:11 pm

        Who suppressed the evidence?
        Who prevented the trials from being completed?
        Who prevented the studies from being published? Have papers been submitted and rejected unfairly? If so, that could be demonstrated easy enough.

        You make a lot of claims, but like Burzynski, support is lacking.

        • Oldskoolsoldier   November 20, 2014 at 11:34 pm

          Those are all fair questions to ask, Scott.
          One question I’d like to ask: Is there a study that proves that antineoplastons do not work at all? Has anyone done a study to prove their ineffectiveness? I know that’s not the way things usually work, but I would think that at least one team of researchers would want to test some of these claims. If it’s happened, please let me know, because I am not aware of any.

          • Scott   November 21, 2014 at 12:29 am

            Basic intro statistics – you can not show the null hypothesis to be true. You either reject the null hypothesis (an effect) or you fail to reject the null hypothesis. This is why ‘this’ is not done … you can’t. Maybe the effect is so small you can’t measure it. i.e. if treatment gave the subject 1 second longer life. Maybe the sample size was not big enough …
            It is up to the person making the claim to provide the evidence. Testimonies are not appropriate or convincing evidence in any manner. To even come close to the claims he makes requires phase II and phase III trials which have gone through peer review – that includes being published and then facing the bigger meat grinder which occurs after publication when a larger number of people get to evaluate the research.

            Until that point the correct position to hold is that ANP’s have failed to support the claims.

  6. Ric Schiff   November 18, 2014 at 12:23 pm

    First, My compliments to the Author for being willing to see the truth.

    Skeptics can howl as long and as loud as they wish, that won’t make them any less wrong!
    The peer review articles are at (the only DPIG cure ever documented).
    The FDA has just ACCEPTED Dr. Burzynski’s phase II clinical trials, and they have approved ANP for Phase III. That was based on the efficacy that the FDA saw. No “conventional treatment” has ever gotten that far through the approval process for DIPG brain tumors.

    Oldschoolsoldier is absolutely right, this is all about suppressing cures so that Pharma and their chemo “doctors” can profit from “treatments” rather than cures. Do you really think that choosing toxic chemotherapy and radiation to invest in is because those are the only options? Would you argue that the Cancer Industry hasn’t oriented itself towards toxic treatments for the past 40 years? You don’t believe that Pharma makes huge profits at the misery of cancer patients? All of this is a simple matter of record.

    As for Dr. Burzynski being a fraud……he is not. That is my professional expert opinion, and I am the expert on Fraud here. The fraud are those treatments which poorly informed skeptics tout, and the ONCOLOGISTS WHO OFFER THEM KNOWING THAT THEY ARE INEFFECTIVE AGAINST MOST OF THE CANCERS THAT THEY ARE PERSCRIBED FOR. Why prescribe ineffective treatments? For the money……..

    Lt. Ric Schiff

    • Guy Chapman   November 19, 2014 at 3:39 pm

      Ric, does your employer approve you coming here to promote a commercial entity, one where you were a director until slightly after you spawned the astroturfing operation you now run? And doing it with their name and your police rank, thus implicitly placing them in the position of endorsing your comments?

      Do they approve of you using your affiliation as “proof” that the commercial entity’s predatory business practices are not fraud, because “you know it when you see it”?

      Does approval of a Phase III trial inherently validate a treatment? If so, why does anybody ever bother to do Phase II?? Why has not one of the 60-odd trials registered over the last two decades been completed and published? Can you cite any legitimate researchers who have a 0 for 61 completion and publication record for trials conducted on human subjects? Can you cite any that have “case management fees” comparable to those charged by Burzynski? How do you account for the failure to report adverse events until years later, the destruction of essential records, the misreading of scans, the misrepresentation of treatment responses? You cannot deny that these things are true, because the people who identified and reported them are every bit as experienced and expert in their field as you are in policing, and by your own argument that makes their opinion tantamount to fact.

      I don’t think Burzynski is committing fraud. I think he is guilty of predatory business practices necessitated his refusal to work in a scientifically and ethically defensible manner. If antineoplastons genuinely worked as he claims, he wanted to keep all the money and all the glory. If they don’t (as is vastly more likely, given the data) then he is in denial and does not want to expose his data to the cold light of day. Neither of these alternatives is particularly admirable, and I can’t think of a third.

  7. james pitts   November 17, 2014 at 5:24 pm

    My wife of 45 years died of cancer april 4th 2014—-she wanted to live, We went first to md anderson houston texas—the so called best–the list of unbelievable mistakes, useless treatments, ineptness and dumbness is hard to believe. The dollar cost makes Bruzuyske’s cost just peanuts. After about 7 months we went to mayo hospital in phoenix az same kind of nonsense—-We chose the “best” and were defrauded of life. And yes “the love of money is the root of all evil.”

  8. David Heffron (@DavidHeffron)   November 16, 2014 at 8:36 pm

    The “doctor” is a total quack who should be in jail for tricking the vulnerable out of their money.

    • oldskoolsoldier   November 17, 2014 at 1:45 am

      So what should we do? Continue to use chemotherapy that has a success rate of less than 10% (even 80% of doctors who do the treatment said they would rather live a shorter amount of time rather than do chemo)……

      • Scott   November 17, 2014 at 11:06 am

        He needs to show it works in the way Science accepts not the way weight loss fads are marketed. Until then he should be treated like the ‘Scientist/Doctor’ he has shown himself to be. He has had much more than ample time and chances to provide evidence – 62 trials started and zero papers published in peer reviewed journals on any of those studies. That speaks the volumes that his lack of research does not.

        • Oldskoolsoldier   November 17, 2014 at 2:31 pm

          There are lots of testimonials out there that say it works, but it seems like it’s not a permanent fix. Most patients will have to continue to take antineoplaston for many years, possibly the rest of their lives, which is a VERY expensive treatment at $10,000 a month (for treatment at the Bruzynski clinic). My guess as to why he hasn’t published a paper is that he is trying to perfect his treatment so people don’t have to take it forever. That way it’s marketable to more than just rich people. Insurance would never cover those costs, and as long as they can work with the rest of the traditional cancer treatment industry to demonize the alternative treatments to the radiation and chemo, they’re still making top dollar.

          So my question is why are both Bruszynski and the rest of the cancer “treatment” industry so greedy? Why can’t they work together?

          • Scott   November 19, 2014 at 1:22 am

            Testimony is how weight loss fads use as evidence in tabloids, not anything comparable to Scientific evidence. There is zero controls to evaluate against, how many have very negative experiences? The Clinic’s sites don’t give negative testimonials.
            As for not publishing data – your excuse is lame. There is no such thing as perfect treatment for serious issues. Is it fast enough, is the side effect profile minimal enough, is the cost low enough? If he really wanted it to progress, he would publish to get support and additional efforts in solving the issues you claim still exist. The problem is that without the actual completed studies with peer review for additional insight to really know how the treatment works and what issues still exist.
            His record of not completing trials, not following the the protocols of the studies. When the FDA investigated the center – much of the data was either not gathered or missing which would not allow them to determine if the treatment was effective or not?

          • Oldskoolsoldier   November 20, 2014 at 2:25 am

            Okay, Scott, so you’re convinced that antineoplaston do not work. What do you suggest be done? Continue to use chemo and radiation therapy, that has such a low success rate and detriment to the body that most of the very doctors who prescribe and implement it would rather die than use it? Do you suggest that we continue to dump $100 million into ALS. How effective has the billions that has been raised for breast cancer awareness and treatment been going? You need to read “Pink Ribbons, Inc: Breast Cancer and the Politics of Philanthropy” by Samantha King.

          • Ric Schiff   November 20, 2014 at 9:10 am

            First, most patients aren’t on treatment for more than 2 years. Why do patients stay on after the initial 6 week MRI? Because it’s working and they want to save their lives . Can ANP be improved ? Of course ….. Put the research money into ANP instead of chemo and radiation failures!

            Burzynski welcomes the independent research, contrary to skeptic rhetoric!

          • Scott   November 21, 2014 at 2:11 am

            When the studies published in good peer reviewed journal which seems promising … Then Scientists will follow up the lead.
            At this point there is a lack of evidence to support such action. Most of the ‘research’ on their page is a couple decades old and not very convincing.

            The failure of even completing of the phase II trials let alone published the results, to make more research worthwhile.

          • Oldskoolsoldier   November 20, 2014 at 2:20 pm

            Ric, most of the patients take ANP until the tumor/cancerous growth go away, but in a good chunk of them it ends up coming back. This implies that the treatment works, but it’s something that the person is most likely going to have to continue to take to keep the growth away. From what I’ve read and seen it works, but it can get expensive if you have to take it the rest of your life. Obviously, there’s a lot more research that needs to go into this treatment, but it’s way better than destructive chemo and radiation!

      • Scott   November 17, 2014 at 11:31 am

        Where are you getting this 10% from?
        What type or stage of Cancer is it that the Doctors referring to and where is this study from?
        There are many forms of Cancer where the success rate is over 80%.
        There are some Cancers and in late stages of many that cure is not likely – the question becomes a trade off of sorts – loose some quality of life in exchange for living a little longer. It might be months or a year, which in some cases might be with it for the person so they can be present for some event or they just want to hang on for as long as they can. I would expect being around a lot of people at their worst, a constant influx of new individuals, it would seem like no matter how many you helped (or die) there are new ones to take their places — that would likely make one lean towards the not prolonging things in the cases where the success rate is low, or at least be quicker to stop treatment if the Cancer is not responding.

          • Guy Chapman   November 21, 2014 at 4:06 pm

            Canceractive and cancer tutor are utterly unreliable sources – the former, for example, is run by an advertising executive who describes himself as “the UK’s no. 1 cancer researcher” despite having absolutely no relevant qualifications, experience or publications, and the latter makes the entirely false claim that “There exist natural or alternative cancer treatments that consistently have a 50% true cure rate on cancer patients given up on by orthodox medicine” – so I can see why you’re confused, if you are getting your information from sites like those.

            It’s better to go to sites that have reality-based information.

            Childhood Hodgkin’s lymphoma has a very high rate of permanent cure with chemotherapy being the primary treatment. See

          • Scott   November 22, 2014 at 2:08 am

            As I already answered. The 80% did not come from a specific source or type of cancer, but rather as a figure that many particular cancer types exceed, particularly when found while in early stages. The example I gave to you was testicular cancer. In actuality the 5 yr expectancy is only below the 80% value I gave is when at the time of discovery/treatment starts the cancer had already spread to far distant locations.When caught early – the number is well over 90% in every source I have seen. I supplied you with a specific citation before – feel free to find your own source for the data.

          • Guy Chapman   November 22, 2014 at 2:14 am

            It’s also worth noting that a fair proportion of people with cancer, die with it not of it. This applies especially to indolent prostate cancer. Cancer is primarily a disease of old age, after all, so death form other causes is always going to confound the figures.

          • Oldskoolsoldier   November 22, 2014 at 4:29 am

            Guy and Scott, I am definitely not an expert. I suppose I feel, from the testimony and arguments I have seen, that it’s possible that something good can come from antineoplastons. I’ve seen two friends go through tough losses of loved ones with the regular chemo/radiation, so I’m most definitely not a fan of it. The thing that frustrates me is that Burzynski and the rest of the industry can’t seem to work together to see if this is a viable option for cancer treatment.
            Scott, I can tell you know about this subject. I was wondering if you’re willing to share your credentials.

        • Oldskoolsoldier   November 18, 2014 at 7:01 pm

          Well, I’m still waiting for the moderator of this thread to approve my last comment with the links to what I was talking about.
          I also had a question about your “over 80%” Surely there is lots of confusing, misinformation about cancer treatments out there. Where are you getting your 80% from?

          • Scott   November 20, 2014 at 12:04 am

            Well stated Guy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.