More Dying Patients Being Denied Access to Dr. Burzynski’s Life-Saving Treatment

The FDA is effectively signing the death warrant of more patients by denying them access to Dr. Burzynski’s antineoplaston cancer treatment—for no rational reason whatsoever. Please help. Action Alert!
Over the years, we’ve covered the FDA’s attacks on Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, the trailblazing cancer doctor best known for his discovery and development of antineoplastons (ANP), which are peptides and amino acid derivatives that activate tumor-suppressing genes. Independent research has confirmed antineoplastons to be an effective cancer treatment.
As we’ve reported in the past, the conventional medical establishment has, through a succession of relentless attacks, slowly choked off patient access to antineoplastons. In July 2012, after years of failed legal attempts to shutter the Burzynski clinic completely, the FDA told Dr. Burzynski he could no longer accept children for treatment with antineoplastons during the current FDA trial. In January 2013, this ban was extended to adults. This means that under current FDA restrictions, no new patients can be treated with antineoplastons. Terminal cases who could be saved will instead die.
Since the FDA has formally forbidden new patient access to antineoplastons, the only hope of dying patients is to convince the FDA to grant a “compassionate use” or “single-patient protocol” exemption via its expanded access rule. This rule allows for the case-by-case use of an experimental or unapproved drug outside of a clinical trial if a patient has a serious or immediately life-threatening disease or condition, and has no other treatment options left.
For an individual patient to be granted access to an experimental drug in the expanded access rule, a doctor need only conclude that the experimental drug does not pose a greater risk than the disease itself. Despite this rule, the FDA has, on a number of occasions, refused to grant access to antineoplastons for patients for whom the treatment is the last shot at living. In one tragic case, a five-year-old diagnosed with aggressive brain cancer died while waiting for the FDA to approve ANP treatment. The FDA eventually did grant the child compassionate use, but by that time he was already brain dead.
In May of this year, a patient with glioblastoma (GBM) was denied access to Dr. Burzynski’s treatment because the FDA judged that “the potential benefits [did not] justify the potential risks of the treatment.” GBM is a highly malignant form of brain cancer and extremely difficult to treat. Apparently death is less risky for these patients than a natural and effective treatment which has a long history of safe use.
What is both confusing and astonishing is that the FDA representatives who denied the request did not challenge the fact that the antineoplaston treatment has no significant additional side effects when compared to standard cancer therapies. The FDA’s main point of contention seems to be that they consider antineoplastons to be an ineffective treatment for GBM, hence they see no perceived benefit to the treatment. The actual effectiveness of the treatment is not in doubt, however, having been used for many years, but that is supposed to be determined by the current FDA-approved trial.
The government actually agreed to the trial—but only if antineoplastons were combined with conventional chemotherapy, just to muddy the results and protect chemo’s primacy as a cancer treatment. And given the government’s attitude, one can only wonder if the results of the trial will ever see the light of day.
Why then is the FDA denying patients access to a potentially lifesaving treatment when nothing else works? These are exactly the kinds of situations that compassionate use and expanded access were made for—patients with no other options who want access to experimental treatments. But rather than give patients one last chance, the FDA effectively signs their death warrant by denying access to Dr. Burzynski’s antineoplaston treatment. This has to stop.
A public outcry against this madness can make a real difference and save lives. Last March, after a similar ANH-USA grassroots campaign to grant dying patients access to Dr. Burzynski’s treatment, the FDA quietly granted eight patients compassionate use exemptions.
Action Alert! Write to the FDA and ask why the agency is yet again denying patients’ access to treatments that could save their lives—a treatment the FDA has admitted carries no significant side effects compared to other therapies for the same diseases. Please send your message immediately.


  1. So, is our gov’t afraid it will work?
    Is it afraid Big Pharma might not give campaign contributions if this was OK’d?
    We all know special interests are on the FDA board. It’s corrupt from top to bottom. Class action lawsuits are an arms length long from the drugs the FDA has approved.

    1. Oh don’t be silly; THEY KNOW IT WORKS. That’s why they won’t approve or allow this cancer killer to develop. They are in bed with big pharma. It cuts into the prophets of big pharma. That’s why big pharma…doesn’t wanna. Big pharma has no economic incentive to participate in the mass production and distribution of “anti-neoplastons. For them, it’s about the green stuff, and they want more of it.

  2. The FDA is one of the most evil of all current government agencies. I wish it were abolished and replaced with an ethical department that would actually protect us, instead of denying us life-saving treatments and good alternatives to failed standard care.

    1. The FDA is bought and paid for by big Pharma. Yes , it is an evil agency.

        1. I find it ironic that people who are going on about how the FDA is owned are advocating at the behest of a lobby group. #irony

          1. you evidently can’t understand the difference between the FDA and the Bursynski group?

          2. The FDA, in its zeal to “protect” people (people=big pharma ) is attempting to stop alternative health practices, whereas ….. you can surely finish this sentence.

          3. Sure, the difference is clear. The FDA is a government agency charged with keeping food and drugs safe. The Bursynski Group is a gang of thieves and charlatans who prey on the desperate.

          4. The FDA is a corrupted agency, allowing for pharmaceutical drugs that kill OVER 400,000 people per year, not to mention the innocent victims of those who have psychotic breaks from their anti-depressant meds, and wind up hurting innocent people, and themselves.
            Worst of all, the eradication of diseases is by its very nature incompatible with and diametrically opposed to the interests of the pharmaceutical investment
            industry. The eradication of diseases now considered as potential drug markets
            will destroy billions of investment dollars and eventually will eliminate this entire industry.

          5. That’s just absurd. You conspiracy theorists are so wacky. Your scissor like grasp of science is only matched by how thoroughly you misunderstand how business works.
            You have zero evidence for any assertion you just made. But I’d bet folding money that you think you do, and that you’d never have your mind changed by actual evidence.
            What a frightening world you have constructed for yourself.

          6. You’d bet ‘folding money?’ LOL There is no money, there are only debt notes. Does your cognitive grasp of ‘actual evidence’ parallel your grasp of ‘money’? What a delusional world the powers that be have constructed for such compliant lapdogs as yourself.

          7. I’d bet gold bricks that you have a scissor-like grasp on both science and logic.

          8. Hidden things hate the light of truth and uses the ruinous powers made of this world to deceive its wrong doings. Go watch or pay for your fake news and be folded servant to that pocket you believe adores you. TRUTH and EVIDENCE is Standing with “Wyatt and there is plenty of it.

          9. The truth is being released, hopefully today, if this site publishes the article I wrote a few minutes ago. If not, go to Avaaz . org and zoom in on map to Ozone Park, Queens NY and read my story on CoQ10 & Cancer

          10. OK, I gave you the benefit of the doubt last post, but now you’ve “doth protest too much” and proved what an idiot you are. Five minutes with a search engine will show you reams of information about the FDA attacking more successful, lower side-effect treatments while promoting less successful, dangerous-side-effect pharmaceutical campaigns against the same disease.

          11. The tried and true “do your research” crap, eh? Calling me an idiot because I insist on evidence is pretty telling, but not about me.
            And this still has nothing to do with Burzynski’s quackery.

          12. Chemo has a 3% success rate,not to mention the total destruction of your life i’ll take dr burzynskis’,dr gershon’s,cannabis oil,essiac tea,baking soda,hydrogen peroxide ,mangosteen,soursop,hell snakeoil over that anyday of the week

          13. If what you want is a painful suicide you don’t have to pay a quack to do it for you. There are cheaper alternatives.

          14. Or they might go to Europe, but that would take away from the dedicated oncologists in this country, because they aren’t committing suicide, they are rejecting you as the oncologist who is forced by the FDA into limited options. If you could combine the modalities in Europe here, they wouldn’t be rejecting you, dude.

          15. Me too.The side affects of these drugs the FDA has approved is very scarey and dangerous.These drugs aren’t curing,they’re killing people.

          16. We know about the side-effects because they have been in proper clinical trials. Name all these drugs killing people?

          17. Have you even seen the study on which you base your claims?. Also none of those have been proven safe, let alone effective in treating any type of cancer.

          18. The chemo success rate may not even that good. My observation of chemo death certificates tells me that more are killed by chemo than cancer. All it takes to cure cancer is oxygen, but there is no money to be made so it is avoided and suppressed

          19. How much do you receive for being a troll? Besides the loss of your moral compass, I’m sure the income is a net loss. Karma is such a bee-atch!

          20. If you think there is such a thing as getting paid to shill for science I invite you to try to get such a job. Please let us know who’s paying and how much. I’d love to get money for slapping down the kind of silliness I see on this site.

          21. Do you know that Glioblastoma Multiforme has virtually a 0% chance of cure, whether you take chemo, radiation, surgery….whatever? What harm would it be for these patients to take the treatment that has shown itself to work, Dr B’s anti-neoplastins?

          22. That’s the first reasonable question anybody here has asked. This “what’s the harm?” idea is exactly how vultures like Burzynski operate. They give people false hope because they’re at least doing something.
            But the harm is very real. From a monetary standpoint it’s enormous. Have you looked at what this creep charges people? It’s outright cruel. From a health standpoint three things are very likely if someone gives this nonsense treatment a try: Increased pain, worse symptoms, and a shorter life.
            Not worth it.

          23. Oncologists give value in exchange for the money. Burzynski charges big money for poisonous nonsense. That’s called fraud.

          24. Mercola is a dangerous crank. Don’t believe a word he says. Seriously. He runs one of the worst anti-science sites on the web.

          25. Chemo is a joke,it actually kills people because what it does to the body,totally wipes it out and doesn’t kill the cancer.

          26. Proof that chemo is a joke?. Chemo kills people, and all of your other claims?

          27. You can’t be that idiotic–do some research.It surely isn’t doing anything for cancer.My brother has had all the chemo his body can take and he is still dying of cancer.He doesn’t want any more chemo because what it’s doing to him and the dr won’t give him any more treatments,It’s useless.

          28. Its not for me to do your research. When you make certain claims its up to you to prove them, so can you?. I’m sorry to hear about your brother, but standard of care cures 50% of patients in the UK (I will add a link). Have you looked into free clinical trials?.

          29. James, consider I just showed you the hyperthermia research at Duke, you don’t win points by putting people down. We all have things to learn. IF we are open. Reminds me of the story of pharisees that wanted to murder Jesus because he was taking away their power. No matter what he said, their minds were made up. For some people have their minds made up. Even if everyone here gave you, every fact, every research point, and answered you perfectly, you are not about to give up your paradigm.

          30. Cancer lives off of sugar and eliminating it from the diet and the carbohydrates that turn to sugar will help him. Also try to increase his oxygen intake and body fluid oxygen carrying capacity. Hyperthermia is one.

          31. In oncology, the Warburg effect is the observation that most cancer cells predominantly produce energy by a high rate of glycolysis followed by lactic acid fermentation in the cytosol (intra-cellular fluid that is present inside the cells), rather than by a comparatively low rate of glycolysis followed by oxidation of pyruvate in mitochondria as in most normal cells. The latter process is aerobic (uses oxygen). Malignant, rapidly growing tumor cells typically have glycolytic rates up to 200 times higher than those of their normal tissues of origin; this occurs even if oxygen is plentiful. See Pubmed 15516961, 16982728, 25621294, PMC2890051, PMC3941741, PMC2714668, PMC3385868 and PMC2849637
            Cancer cells have metabolic dependencies that distinguish them from their normal counterparts. Among these dependencies is an increased use of the amino acid glutamine to fuel anabolic processes. Indeed, the spectrum of glutamine-dependent tumors and the mechanisms whereby glutamine supports cancer metabolism remain areas of active investigation. Pubmed 24388967, 429309, 11533309 and 18941420 They can also use certain lipids (fats) too

          32. Dr Otto Warburg discovered back in the 1920’s that all cancer is is anaerobic(without oxygen) metabolism. In the anaerobic mode the bodies cells no longer go through apoptosis(the natural dying off of the bodies cells which they normally do periodically) but still do mitosis(cell division) with the result that that particular body mass becomes larger and larger. In the anaerobic mode the cells consume 15 or more times the nutrient of a normal aerobic cell and consume sugar rather than the Adenosine Tri Phosphate(ATP) that a normal cell consumes. Important is the waste products. The anaerobic cell waste is lactic acid while the waste product of the aerobic cells is carbon dioxide. A supply of oxygen can cause the anaerobic cells to go through apoptosis, but they are deprived of the main source because hemoglobin will not release oxygen without first receiving carbon dioxide.

          33. Folks, see the language and research language, James is probably an oncologist/ researcher, probably from Texas, who doesn’t believe in or like Burzynski. Take it for what its worth. James the people are not questioning your ability to heal cancer. They want the ability to make their own choices without your needing to have them come through your door. They are not going to have the cut, burn and poison option no matter how you sell it. That’s why all the research and your excellent speaking skill and referent power isn’t going to make them change their minds.

          34. Hyperthermia is increased body temperature. People have had their cancer cured by catching a disease that raises their body temperature for a time. At the increased temperature the body fluids carry more oxygen and promote apoptosis.

          35. While you are at it, you might look up hyperbaric oxygen and increased pH.

          36. You’re the idiot.Chemo’s a joke.destroys good cells along with the bad.
            My brother has had chemo and it hasn’t done anything but destroy his body and his cancer has came back with a vengeance.

          37. I personally know a woman who treated an advanced metastasized breast cancer at his clinic and she got well with his treatment when her regular oncologist’s prognosis was poor.

          38. I’m glad for your friend. But that anecdote is not evidence, and is easily explained by spontaneous remission. There is no plausibility to Burzynski’s treatments.

          39. You are wrong. Single case studies are a valuable method of research. It builds into evidence case by case. My friend is not the only one who recovered at Burzynski clinic. There are many. And why do you think FDA insists on conducting his trial together with regular chemo? Isn’t it going to contaminate the results? In any medical research, patients volunteers take the investigated drug versus control group who takes placebo. I have never heard of the study where study group would be required to take another drug for the same diagnosis at the same time with the drug being investigated. How could you make any conclusion from a study designed like that??

          40. Single case studies are so weak you can’t responsibly call them studies. At most they can serve as preliminaries to suggest that more study is needed.
            I’m not convinced that you understand how studies are done, or even what the FDA is doing here. No valid studies have been done of Burzynski’s Magic Piss Potion. There is no valid way to conclude that it works until an actual study is done. But since his crap has no prior plausibility, ethics would prevent human trials.

          41. But it has “prior plausibility”. They have conducted many studies at the clinic and they got as far as applying to fda for human clinical trial. You may spit your hatefull name calling and doubts about other people understanding of “how studies are done”. It just tells me who you are as a person… The point is he is denied of conducting this valid study. Ethics has nothing to do with it. People who would volunteer for this study know they have a 100% mortality and no promise of cure would me made. It would be their conscious decision. Is it ethical to let them die in vain? Is it ethical if they consciously had a choice of serving mankind with their participation in a medical trial? I believe these people should be given a choice and the truth. That would be an ethical thing to do. Denying them a dying wish is unethical..

          42. I don’t think you understand the term “prior plausibility”, either. Here is the number of ethical, scientific, valid studies Burzynski has conducted:
            Just because people are desperate doesn’t mean it’s ethical to poison them.

          43. You can’t have a case study that is accurate until the FDA stops allowing chemo then anti-neoplastins. The same horse manure was with laetrile, that Moss exposed. Yea, some effect, but the case study used too little of the drug so New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center could discredit it. Voice, please don’t ask me about this. You can google laetrile and Moss and get your own answers. Until the FDA is willing to do an actual trial without messing with the outcome, Burzynski has every reason to completely avoid the fake case studies. Considering how the FDA includes in each case study of alternate whatever makes the drug not work, Burzynski is smarter than Voice. Ethics means letting people make their OWN choices.

          44. Wait. You’re claiming that Burzynski’s alternative crap therapy is good because a previous alternative therapy, Laetril, was crap? Logic much?
            I’m not saying Burzynski is stupid. I’m saying he’s dishonest and cruel. He’s also ducking doing real studies. No real studies have been done on his piss juice. You nor he can make any claims about efficacy or side effects because it has not been properly studied.

          45. Dodged the point, didn’t read the research on Laetrile (hint: it wasn’t what they published, like check out Moss who blew the whistle on them), I’m not making the claim that’s B’s therapy better than chemo; that it is effective, nor am I trying to impune Burzynski’s character, I’m saying of all the alternative medicine studies that the FDA has instigated to my knowledge, every single one, has be set up to discredit the drug or therapy. That’s a whopping oxymoron of science. So your demands that choosing an alternate therapy is crap, is why we have Europe and some European style clinics in Mexico, and the people in the know, run away from American “scientific” cancer therapies because the FDA won’t let you practice the medicine that the people here want to receive.

          46. I have read about Laetrile. It was garbage. And any study that doesn’t try to prove that a drug doesn’t work is not a proper study. That’s how science works. If you claim that the FDA is rigging tests against “alternative” treatments you’re going to need a whole lot of evidence to back up that silly claim.
            If you aren’t defending Burzynski’s piss juice ripoff, then what exactly *is* your point? The point here is that he’s a quack, and that his treatments don’t work. People keep wandering off to “FDA this” and “Big Pharma that” but never provide one shred of scientific evidence to support this monster’s activities.

          47. The point is Voice, you didn’t bother to fact check Moss and Laetrile, then how accurate is your depiction of anything you are saying?

          48. You can’t answer a direct question, can you? Are you my ex wife?
            When I look up Moss and Laetrile I see links to Mercola. Are you one of those Mercola loons? Do you understand that everything Mercola says is flat out wrong? That’s one of the most anti-science sites on the entire internet.
            Read this slowly. Try to keep up.
            What is your point?
            (It may help to complete this sentence: “My point is…”)

          49. I’m pre-Mercola,like 1970’s, dude. When Ralph Moss’s book came out. Ralph Moss worked early 1970s for New York’s Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. He found they had doctored the results. He published a book. He had their data. When it came to Laetrile Therapy, at the time a widely
            publicized alternative cancer treatment, they lied
            about its effectiveness and suppressed their own positive test results. So look at what you just wrote, you already know it all about laetrile; you didn’t take the time to research the facts, and finally, you don’t want to hear even if it contradicted your knowledge.. I’ll speak slowly so you’ll understand, the scientific method means hypothesis.. Nothing to prove, just data. It means looking for the facts. I’ll speak even more slowly… my point is I’m not here to prove Burzynski right or wrong, wow, my point is to deliberately throw out all therapies especially alternate ones unless approved by the FDA ,(which probably means you’re in the medical profession because if you go outside of the FDA can destroy your practice), is why Europe is ahead of the US on cancer therapies. Even more slowly… you are willing to throw out what could help unless the FDA let’s you use it.

          50. So your point is to throw out all therapies, especially “alternative”, except those approved by the FDA?
            For someone in complete agreement with me you sure sound like you’re arguing. Most of that was incoherent, so I can’t be sure.

          51. Ok, I’ll simplify it for you:,”my point is to deliberately throw out all therapies especially alternate ones unless approved by the FDA’s is why Europe is ahead of the US on cancer therapies.” US Doctors are bound to the FDA: the public isnot. If a person goes to a medical library and finds that lymphoma has a 89 percent cure (American Cancer Society), they probably will use the chemo. When a doctor discusses a 20 percent percent cure rate with possible kidney or heart damage for a cure, we can go outside the doctor’s box to look elsewhere. You are in a market. WE chose what to purchase.

          52. And to further quote George Carlin….. “Here’s all you have to know about men and women: women are crazy, men
            are stupid. And the main reason women are crazy is that men are stupid.”

          53. After it was revealed that the FDA had pressured the Texas medical board to revoke Dr. Burzynski’s medical license — despite the fact that no laws were broken, and his treatment was proven safe and effective — the obvious question was “why?” In 1982, Dr. Richard Crout, Director of the FDA Bureau of Drugs, wrote:
            “I never have and never will approve a new drug to an individual, but only to a large pharmaceutical firm with unlimited finances.”
            The answer to this has to do with money. Lots and lots of money… See, Dr. Burzynski owns the patent for this treatment, and should it actually gain FDA approval, not only would it threaten conventional chemotherapy and radiation, it would also result in billions of dollars of cancer research funds being funneled over to the one single scientist who has exclusive patent rights — Dr. Burzynski.

          54. Similarly, Linus Paulings’ vitamin C cancer cure was discredited by an oral ingestion study while Paulings’ cure required injection to administer enough to cure.

          55. When is the last time you were at his clinic and studied his “case studies”? How much of what he has done has been destroyed by people trying to take him down? And how do you get a patent on a product that doesn’t work? You don’t! he has the patent and that is what the wolves are after. This is why they are trying to take him down. It is all about money and power not about saving lives and curing cancer.

          56. Are you serious? The patent office is full of patents for crap that doesn’t work.
            Why are you defending someone who hurts people and charges them for it?

          57. I’m with you gardenlady. the same horse manuer stands with statin drugs. it isn’t about curing, it is about cashing in. We need to get to Austin TX on 11/19/2015 and help turn this true cancer sickness around as it seems to have gotten into a few brains here. Some of these people are not thinking clearly. I support Burzynski 110% and I’m thrilled that he is still on the front line fighting for freedom.

          58. What I come to realize is that there are lots of us coming to Dr. Burzynski’s defense during this discussion but only one of you. That is what gives me hope that one day, just like the people that were convinced that the world was flat, you will eat your words.

          59. You’re foolishly piling on the logical fallacies, now including appeal to the masses. This is an echo chamber of people who have been duped by this monster. It needs me to point out how evil this clown is. The true believers will never accept things like actual evidence or a logical argument. My only hope is that bystanders reading this will think twice before letting this fraud rip them off and make them sick.

          60. “Single case studies are a valuable method of research. It builds into evidence case by case.” Exactly!

          61. Dear Linda–I am so sorry about your sister.It would be impossible for my brother to travel to Texas,he is doing poorly and there is no money to send him there.The chemo didn’t do anything but destroy his body,I don’t think he even has a month.
            Again,so sorry about your sister–may she RIP.

          62. There is no plausibility to your comments and you are entitled to your opinion. Just give me the option the choose – like the option that I choose to know what I eat. If you let corporations dictate what you can and cannot do, they will certainly take over and control all in the name of “what’s good for you”. No thanks. If it is so good for you, then they can eat and use whatever medical intervention they deem appropriate for them. I’ll do the same for myself. We will all live happily ever after – well some of us will anyway.

          63. Yup, and some incurables find life at the Gerson clinic. Too bad we can’t have choice in the “free” USA. ..

          64. yup gerson is fantastic and gerson moved just across the border into Mexico. we have a choice but we just can’t tell anyone or we just cross the border. we can’t let the vultures pick at our bones to fatten their wallets and until we band together, nothing will change.

          65. Your description is pretty much the response to orthodox cancer treatments–the tortures of hell. You can’t poison people to health. And have you looked at what orthodox cancer treatment charge? If medical and pharmaceutical special interests and government bureaucrats stopped spending money trying to restrict our ‘freedom of choice’ Burzynski he wouldn’t have The legal defense bills that require him to charge so much.
            Years back I was in DC with his patients when they were lobbying for their treatment. I’ve seen the results they are real.
            Worthless treatments die of their own weight. You pretty much know something works when mainstream invests time and money in fighting it. They’re not stupid (just greedy and evil) and don’t pursue truly bogus, worthless treatments because those die of their own weight.

          66. Laraine, You might find it interesting to study the cancer cure that Dr. David Gregg found based on Cesium.

          67. Iron Man: I am not David Gorski. He is is a surgical oncologist at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute specializing in breast cancer surgery. You know, an actual doctor who actually treats cancer patients. What are you asking?

          68. Hmmm I am not a scientist, so I would not know whether or not the science that is discussed there has any merit, but the gentleman – Voice in the Wilderness – protesteth to much not to be involved with Mr Gorski or his website.

          69. Voice, comparison of the quality of life isn’t in your equation. You are discounting that going through chemo can be worse than experiencing cancer. Watched my dad slowly die with it. Years of pain vs. pain at the end. It’s their life. If they chose to say no, it’s THEIR Choice. Not their oncologist’s. Our 95 year old mother is forgoing chemo for pancreatic cancer. She is at 9 months, still going strong, little pain. Dude, it’s a choice! You however have your mind firmly standing on your paradigm. You lost your compassion miles back.

          70. Nothing about that justifies what Burzynski does, which is rip people off while torturing them with worthless chemicals. It’s not compassion, it’s fraud.

          71. None so blind as those who refuse to see, it tortures the wallet, while chemo tortures the body. My uncle with another problem was in a chemo room. The air flow took the air out because chemo is so pervasive. Until the FDA allows people to chose what they want, we don’t have compassion: we have a monopoly. Picking alternate isn’t a death sentence, and picking conventional medicine isn’t a guarantee of life. We will continue to vote with our wallets and pick our own path, not you.

          72. True that there is none so blind. I give up. You don’t want to see, and you can’t make a coherent point.
            Choice is not the point, by the way, if one of the things you’re choosing is fraudulent.

          73. “Choice is not the point, by the way, if one of the things you’re choosing is fraudulent.” I can go to the garage and direct the mechanic to do the work on my car that I chose. But when I go to a doctor, HE decides what I should do. It’s called “playing God.” The question is, whose life is it? The doctor’s or yours.

          74. In fact, the Doctor is not allowed the best choice unless it enrichens the pharma combine.

          75. Median survival is around 14/15 months. However patients that are younger, have good neurologic function, a low KPS (Karnofsky performance status) score do better. As do those with MGMT methylation. Also many pharma companies are conducting free trials that could offer much benefit to the patients themselves

          76. Well now Mr. Voice in the Wilderness, we understand why you live in the wildnerness. Not much brain function required. Just forage for your food and a warm place to sleep at night and you are all set. 15 years plus of documentation and thousands of documented cases of recovery and testimony from survivors that were given a death sentence but didn’t listen, is not wacky conspiracy theorist propaganda I assure you. About the only thing frightening to me in my world are people like you that live too close to home. People like you thought Hitler was an ok guy too until one morning they woke up with a number tatooed on their arm. Cancer is serious business Mr. Wilderness but I guess I can’t expect you to know that if you live under a rock.

          77. righto That’s why the feds tried to patent stuff which was already patented by Burzynski. Then there’s the FACT that the government, with all of its resources, has lost its case against Burzynski several times.
            There’s also the well documented cases of partients being cured who were declared terminal by well known clinics.
            You’d probably be the 1st person in line to get access to Burzynski treatment if the Mayo clinic declared you terminal.

          78. 1. Wrong. The feds don’t apply for patents. Burzynski has skated in the courts a few times, but science and medicine are not matters of law.
            2. Please provide links to these “well documented cases”.
            3. Wrong. I’m not suicidal and I don’t like making frauds rich.

          79. If you’re willing to post your real name perhaps we can agree on a bank to hold a small wager, say, $1,000 on the patent issue.

          80. Because giving my personal data to a group of knuckle-dragging conspiracy theorists is such a good idea.
            Not having recently fallen off of a turnip truck, I propose this: Post credible evidence that the feds have applied for patents on Dr. B’s snake oil and you’ll get a formal apology. I am willing to change my mind about *anything* based on solid evidence.
            Are you?

          81. You probably also don’t believe that the folks who show up at Bursynski’s door – the ONLY ones the feds will permit, are those who have been checked and classified as terminal by such places as the Mayo Clinic.
            And that a reasonable percentage of them live for many years after his treatment.
            But, you don’t want to do the work. You want to play skeptic and have others spoon feed you.
            NO CHANCE. Get off your butt or just continue being a knuckle dragging idiot.

          82. You can “get off your butt”, and ask Bursynski for information (including copies of Mayo and other clinics) , It’s in the documentation he provides to interested folks. Why are you asking me?

          83. Why don’t you study Organic Chemistry until you have a PhD pull Dr Burzynski’s Patent and come up with a better way to activate the immune system to destroy cancer cells? Now do it by yourself and see what happens to you. There are patents… Look under the NIH “antineoplastons” then start cross-referencing and researching with the patent office. Waiting for a formal apology… do the work from scratch like a journalist… a real journalist, just the facts.

          84. Antineoplastons don’t activate the immune system, its claimed they target many oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes.

          85. Any drug that modern medicine has out there,just read some of the side effects,their destroying our bodies.Face it,it’s all about the money.

          86. Many drugs are long off patent. The first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes is metformin, which is long off patent. Yes some have side-effects but the risks need to be balanced against the benefits of treatment.

          87. Every drug has side affects.But it’s a money making thing for them.

          88. It all depends on what drugs, along with what they are treating. Newer drugs can be better but sadly cost more

          89. Risk to benefit is a false paradigm formed of suffering and death, a toxsick bastardization of the true spirit of healing: DO NO HARM.
            In TRUTH, if a pill poses a risk, it is poison, PERIOD. The appalling ‘iatrogenic’ death stats that include untold millions of babies and children make that patently obvious to all fearless observers, including ANH readers. So PLEASE loathsome trolls, go away! Your soulless efforts are wasted here!

          90. No. Given an existing problem, it may be better not to do something, or even to do nothing, than to risk causing more harm than good, thats what it means. It reminds the health care provider that they must consider the possible harm that any intervention might do. Also contrary to popular belief the phrase does not appear in the Hippocratic Oath or the Hippocratic corpus. Rather the saying is attributed to Thomas Inman, as recently as 1860

          91. Nobody cares what you think nor trusts what you say, troll. Don’t flatter yourself that the attention you garner is anything but a healthy human compulsion to challenge a lie, and you tell a proverbial sh*tload. It’s an ethical impulse and thus foreign to your kind, so you mimic it under false pretenses with smug condescension, fooling no one, ever.
            You and your kind inspire the same emotion as the mosquito one keeps swatting and missing until finally, SPLAT! That’s the best you can hope to inspire here or, presumably, anywhere – the relief of knowing the bloodsucking nuisance is gone for good. Let’s hope.

          92. The United States of America as represented by the DoH, or NIH do take them out, but as you know this doesn’t prove ”x” works

          93. You are so right,there would be many cured with natural cures.One thing is for sure,modern medicine isn’t curing anything,just masking.Chemo,radiation,what a joke.But again,Big Pharma is hand in glove with modern medicine.

          94. Patent #6,037,376 is for phenylacetate, or its derivatives. Also a patent isn’t proof of anything

          95. Well. That’s a pretty persuasive argument. I particularly like your well-referenced evidence.

          96. You’ve got that right! So many besides that one are just the same! If there is an agency that truly cares or gives a d–n about ours and our family’s health and wellness; I’m not aware of it. The ones that I know of are only doing the opposite! 🙁

          97. LOL…. you wrote it for me ! … lost in the wilderness !! lol when he wrote that Whole Food is a bigger corporation than Monsanto , I decided not to waste time engaging…..

          98. My aunt sought treatment from Bursynski, for an inoperable brain tumor and now after a few months of treatments, no tumor can be detected after testing. The FDA is seeking to control a treatment, that could take profits from the cancer industry.

          99. Most assuredly spontaneous remission, which does happen. It was not Bursynski’s snake oil that did it. He’s a ripoff artist, pure and simple, and the fact that he deceives good people like you and your aunt into thinking he made a difference is what makes him such a monster.
            It’s ironic that you think this guy, who charges for pure crap, is somehow better than an imagined “industry” that you think wants profit. Profit is all Bursynski is about, not medicine.

          100. Ah i see, you are a paid industry commenter. I noticed after seeing your other comments, its quite obvious. People are waking up, and no matter what you post, you can’t stop the awakening. Blood money, that is all you are earning. Requirements for your paid commenting position? Flexible morality, lacking a soul. I wish you an awakening for your own sake, but it is a choice and it’s obviously one you are avoiding….

          101. That’s one of the most hilarious accusations conspiracy theorists make. No, there’s no such thing as a “paid industry commenter”. That’s absurd. I’m someone who cares about people and respects science. Those are two things Bursynski definitely is not.
            Ask yourself what evidence you would need to believe that his “treatments” are bunk. If the answer is that there isn’t any, then you’re thinking like a conspiracy theorist.

          102. Simple. Look at his record.
            What evidence would you accept to see if his treatments might actually be effective. I bet you answer is “their isn’t any.” (i.e. “No matter what evidence is presented, I will not accept it.”)

          103. His record is this: Every one of his “antineoplaston” patients is dead. His treatments have never worked. Even once.
            The evidence I’d need? Simple. Actual, repeatable, clinical trials. Just like for any other drug or treatment.

          104. Gotta make that money don’t you? Do you get paid by the word, sentence, paragraph or being the last comment in a thread? I’ve been in the comment communities for quite a few years and your comments are practically copy paste postings. lol.
            Readers are becoming much more aware than they used to be. You are noise and distraction. Gotta make that money. 😉 cha-ching!

          105. Who’s paying you?
            Look, if you really think there’s such a thing as a paid commenter, how about you go undercover and get a job as one? Please post documentation of who hired you and how much you got paid.
            Talk about gullible.

          106. Now that’s HILARIOUS!
            You aren’t even reading the comments you’re responding to! You’re just searching the page for my name and posting the same illiterate drivel.
            OK, free lesson, because I’m in a generous mood. Those three dots (…) are called ellipses. They are only used when you are leaving out words. They are not used to indicate a connection. You should be using a comma. That looks like this: ,
            You really need a hobby.

          107. I’ll add a few more dots if it will make you happy, although I am not sure that it will diminish your pharma support. I am not really impressed by Burszynsky, but am sure that he is much less dangerous than the conventional treatment which you seem to espouse.
            And…don’t forget, you tried to discredit me first.
            Now you prove that oxygen therapy cannot cure cancer as you criticised me for stating.

          108. Add *more* dots? You really are funny.
            Nobody “proves” anything in science. But the burden of evidence is on the party making the claim. I don’t have to provide any evidence that your proposed modality doesn’t work. You need to provide solid scientific evidence that it does.

          109. Good going! You rattled the troll’s cage and it went into pure projection mode below – ‘I know you are, but what am I?’ hahaha Nothing like exposure to flummox the toxic little beasts.

          110. Voice: What a happy surprise to see a sane, reasonable, informed person commenting. I don’t know how so many people can be so clueless about this obvious predatory scumbag doctor!

          111. Thanks. It’s scary just how crazy people can get defending this scumbag.

          112. The above is an example of psychopathology in action. Often resulting from vaccine-induced brain injury, it’s part of the autism spectrum and can deepen to psychopathy when in conjunction with an abusive childhood. Some telltale signs of the disorder include shameless pathological lying and reckless disregard for others. So it’s common find them in the employ of criminals.

          113. Listen up, you stubborn mule. I’ve already provided copious links to actual scientific evidence about this quack. Instead of reading it you have been running around shouting to the world that you don’t understand how to use ellipses, and trying to call me something I’m not.
            That’s not only stupid, it’s dishonest. So either read the articles at the link I sent you or shut up. The only people you’re going to convince with your “shill” chant are conspiracy-theorist morons.
            First you should stop and count to ten and calm down. Assuming you can count that high.

          114. Congrats to your Aunt.Of course the FDA is seeking to control it,they are hand in glove with Big Pharma,follow the money trail,it’s all about the money.

          115. Thank You Marion – yes, her life changed due to Burzynski, regardless of what paid industry astroturfers post. The criminality of the FDA just keeps getting larger on so many fronts.

          116. According to mainstream medicine. They said the same about chiropractors back in the day. Still count German cancer therapies a unproven quack medicine, too, even though it worked for Reagan.

          117. You had better do a little research on the FDA and see what drugs they say are safe,read just a few of the side affects,maybe you’ll change your mind.

          118. Oh, please stop with the “do your research” thing. It’s just too funny. You need to do some. Back up what you say with evidence. Try.
            Everything has potential side effects. So what?

          119. The only gang of thieves is the FDA and Big Pharma,the drugs that they have cleared for consumption are killing everybody.Thus the horrible and deadly side affects.Getting rich is their priority,that comes first.

          120. Are you blind?Do you take any meds?Look at the side affects–is that the best they can do?Give something that is slowly killing people?Not curing, but masking the disease.You know I’m right.

          121. Do you have a space bar?
            So you have no evidence. Didn’t think so. Yes, I take medication. It keeps my blood pressure in a healthy range, greatly extending my life. That’s what real medicine does, you know. And science is the only way we have to know what works. Period.
            Don’t bother replying until you can point to actual, scientific evidence for your assertions.
            Also, nothing you said has anything to do with how this particular doctor is preying on the desperate. It’s a distraction. Even if the FDA were run by the mafia that wouldn’t make what this creep does any more legit.

          122. The list of *possible* side effects is not evidence that the medicine is killing you. It’s evidence that the medicine has been through actual clinical trials and has been properly studied and monitored. If you *don’t* see a list of possible side effects you’re likely buying crap. Buyer beware.

          123. Whatever.Keep taking the meds,they’re not helping you,just amsking what you’ve got.

          124. Let me get this straight. You claim to know that the scientifically developed and prescribed medication I take isn’t helping me, but think that some crap a whackaloon whipped up out of piss in his garage cures cancer.
            Do you have any idea how nutty that sounds? Just amsking.

          125. That is utterly, totally, demonstrably false. You’re skating past funny straight into tragically sad.

          126. FDA is sadly corrupted and protecting pharma and the medical industry over the public. You need to educate yourself. Start with the book ‘Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime–How Big Pharma has Corrupted Healthcare. The book is solidly referenced and written by Peter C. Gotzsche, physician and co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration.

          127. Even if the FDA turns out to be the mafia, that doesn’t make Burzynski’s crap anything more than what it is: crap.
            But if you’re afraid of “Big Pharma” you’re a conspiracy theorist and immune to evidence and logic.

          128. Just read the book I mentoned, and also read ‘ The Truth About the Drug Companies–How they deceive us and what to do about it’ by Marsha Angell, MD, the 20 year editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.

          129. “The FDA is a government agency charged with keeping food and drugs safe.” now that is a ridiculous comment if ever I heard one ? You actually do believe in the illusions apparently ?
            All the alphabet agencies are shills for the corporatocracy we all live in.

          130. Says you. But even if it does, that doesn’t mean Burzynski isn’t a crank.

          131. And it is clear that many are brain washed into believing that the FDA is on our side while we become the sickest nation in the world yet we spend the most on health care. I will stick with the Burzynski group any day of the week if I am given a choice.

          132. All I know about this “man” (Burzynski) is what’s been publicized. Juries have thrown out the baseless cases against him, and they show up at subsequent “trials” protesting, along with some of the patients cured by Bursynski.
            The only folks he’s permitted to treat are those who have been given a death sentence by the likes of the Mayo Clnic. (and he has the documentation of that).
            It’s relatively easy to check on the facts. Those who don’t bother are either way too married to the existing cabal, or believe nothing – ever.
            It’s not that Bursynski can cure all these hopeless cases, but the fact that he can cure any speaks volumes.

          133. A court is not a place to argue science. Also in a court of law, the jury vote by majority; therefore they will always make the correct decision – but that would be appealing to the majority, a logical fallacy. Where is all this evidence from Phase I-III trials to show his drugs are safe and effective?

          134. The “science” in this case involved having to find someone Burzynski treated who had been harmed. NOBODY could be found, but there was no problem producing individuals who were CURED.
            As I said, there is NO WAY a prestigious org such as Mayo Clinic would stand by and let Bursynski claim he cured somebody who they had assessed as hopeless. In fact, that’s evidently a requirement forced on him by the bureaucracy.
            The medical profession and big pharma have LOTS of problems, not just cancer. They still refuse to acknowledge even oxygen therapy.

          135. Most, if not all patients haven’t been cured on this man treatments, and the other’s who have been ”cured,” well it could be down to a host of other reasons. Do we know how the Judge defined ‘harmed’?. Its possible that some didn’t want to testify against him, or were told about the side-effects and don’t think anything wrong with his treatments. But as I’ve said a courtroom isn’t a place to debate science, and using anecdotal evidence to prove something is very wrong indeed.
            Burzynski can claim all he likes, but its up to him to prove it. So why would the Mayo Clinic care what he says?. He is yet to prove anything.
            Major pharma companies are willing to work with, or buyout companies. Bristol-Myers Squibb bags an IDO immunotherapy in a $1.25B buyout of fledgling company Flexus. They have given $800 million upfront to gain control of a preclinical IDO1 immunotherapy that shows promise in treating cancer. With another $450 million set aside for milestones. They are also paying Rigel $30 million upfront and up to $309 million in milestones for the chance to collaborate on Rigel’s portfolio of small molecule TGF beta receptor kinase inhibitors. TGF beta can promote tumor growth, broadly suppress the immune system and increase the ability of tumors to spread in the body. Also Roche inked a deal worth up to $555 million to work with India’s Curadev Pharma on cancer treatments that use the body’s immune system to combat tumors. The partnership covers early-stage treatments that target the enzymes IDO1 and TDO. Under the deal, the Swiss drug maker will pay $25 million up front and promise up to $530 million tied to milestones. Pharma could easily do this with Burzynski, so why don’t they?

          136. You think Burzynski is bogus unless he cures ALL the people assessed as hopeless? That’s quite an expectation. The fact that he can cure ANY is enough to give hope to those previously identified as “dead ducks”. Burzynski has obviously proved it. Do you realize how many times he has been dragged into court?
            Burzynski has also cured enough to prove that the “anecdotal” brush-offis bogus.

          137. Burzynski has proved nothing. He has never finished, let alone published all this trial data. Why?

          138. He’s published enough for anyone with an IQ > potted plant. I also don’t doubt that if you were credible and had some specific questions, he’d deign to answer them.

          139. Although Burzynski and others claim success in the use of antineoplaston combinations for the treatment of various cancers there is no evidence of the clinical efficacy of these methods. The consensus among the professional community, as represented by the American Cancer Society and Cancer Research UK, is that antineoplaston therapy is unproven and the overall probability of the treatment turning out to be as claimed is low due to lack of credible mechanisms and the poor state of research after more than 35 years of investigation. While the antineoplaston therapy is marketed as a non-toxic alternative to chemotherapy, it is a form of chemotherapy with significant known side effects including severe neurotoxicity. Independent scientists have been unable to reproduce the positive results reported in Burzynski’s studies. The US NCI observed that researchers other than Burzynski and his associates have not been successful in duplicating his results, and Cancer Research UK states that “available scientific evidence does not support claims that antineoplaston therapy is effective in treating or preventing cancer.”

          140. “side-effects”? That’s a bit silly, given that Bursynzki patients have already been written off. Almost anything beats death. And when you talk about side effects, you seem to be ignoring that chemo and radiation kill many cancer patients, and life spans are longer in many cases if the patient opts against surgery, chemo and radiation.

          141. Some of the side-effects have been so bad that patients have ended up in A&E, and a few seem to have died because of them. Worse still is that there is no evidence the drugs work, and he charges huge prices for the ‘treatments’ Please prove that chemo & radio kill people, and also that patients how opt to have no surgery, chemo or radio live longer?

          142. “prove”? You make statements, no proof, but require others to prove everything they say. Can’t have it both ways.

          143. No positive evidence has been given by yourself. I’ve backed up my statements with evidence from the US NCI and CRUK and others. The only claims come from the man selling them. You seem to have no proof that chemo and radio kill, or cuts short a persons life, as if you did you would post it.

          144. NO proof that chemo kills? I have no time to spoon feed you. Chemo is toxic. It kills both cancer and good cells. Sorry, life is way too short to deal with empty-heads.

          145. Yes, proof. When you make a claim then its up to you to back it up with evidence, can you?. The ”empty-heads” is an ad hominem also.

          146. I don’t have the time nor inclination to defend Burzynski to you (or to anyone else). If you’re really interested in evidence, pursue it with Burzynski. He provides plenty of information that he (and various juries) have found convincing. Be my guest.

          147. A court isn’t the place to debate science. You have no evidence, just like him. He has had decades to prove this treatments works and can’t. Over 61 trials started by him and nothing has been published from any of them. He does a few case reports now and then, along with a paid movie to tout claims of efficacy and thats it. His treatments have been disproved long ago. Science is moving on

          148. :disproved long ago” ? When he gave those feds the protocol for one of the treatments they ignored his protocol and then claimed it didn’t work. Neither you nor the feds can prove that. It’s because of that b.s. that it ended up in court and the feds keep losing. Not necessary to be a scientist to understand what happened.

          149. I’d like to know why, after 30 years, Burzynski has yet to publish a single paper in a peer-reviewed journal outlining his protocols. Either it means that his protocols DO NOT actually stand up to scrutiny and are quackery plain and simple, or it means that he has protocols that DO work, in which case he is deliberately withholding that information. The reason why researchers publish their research is so it can be checked, verified and then applied by other teams all over the world. Frankly I hope it is the former, because that just means he is a snake-oil salesman selling false hope to desperate people. I say this because the alternative is worse – that Burzynski’s protocols do work, in which case he is deliberately withholding information on a treatment that could help thousands of people worldwide, and preventing other researchers and cancer centres from using it. That would be not only grossly unethical, but flat out evil

          150. hmmmm kind of like big pharma war on natural medicines, and big medicine focus on just treating symptoms.

          151. To hear them (alternative doctors) tell it, modern medicine cures nothing. It simply manages disease and suppresses symptoms. It is a measure of the astounding success of the medical system that anyone could seriously contemplate such nonsense. Modern medicine cures so much disease, involving so many people, so reliably and so often that everyone takes it for granted.
            Evidently medicine doesn’t cure anything except … tuberculosis, pneumonia, bacterial meningitis, gonorrhea, most bacterial illness you care to name. Medicine routinely cures previously deadly conditions like appendicitis, ectopic pregnancies and obstetric hemorrhage. Better yet, it can completely prevent many viral and bacterial scourges through vaccination. In fact, cure is so routine that these illnesses rarely enter the consciousness.
            No one worries about dying from tertiary syphilis, diphtheria or rheumatic heart disease. Those diseases are routinely prevented or cured in their early stages. Also ”disease management” is hardly a deficiency, either.
            Some diseases cannot yet be cured. Until the day that a cure is discovered, we manage those diseases. Type I diabetes was uniformly fatal until the discovery of insulin. Insulin doesn’t cure diabetics; it merely allows them to live an addition 50 years or more. Instead of dying in childhood, type I diabetics routinely live to have and enjoy grandchildren. Such ”disease management” is worthy of praise, not the contempt that ”Big Placebo” attempts to heap on it.
            Can we do better? Of course we can, particularly in the areas of chronic diseases caused by certain factors. However, that’s a far cry from claiming that medicine doesn’t cure disease. That cynical and disingenuous claim should be understood for what it is, ”Big Placebo’s” attempt to line its own pockets. Alternative health purveyors and practitioners are charlatans, many are quacks … and some very dishonest too

          152. I tracked the troll’s ’61 trials’ mad parroting to the source and no surprise, it’s just more bullsh*t to hurl at Dr. Burzynski.

          153. Right on, Denis, but it’s the troll’s heart that’s empty – its head is full of bullsh*t.

          154. A search on the clinicaltrials website for antineoplastons brings back 61 results. Most have an unknown status. Some have either been withdrawn or terminated. However only one study has ever been completed by him, the title is ‘Antineoplaston Therapy in Treating Patients With Stage IV Melanoma’ and he is yet to publish the results. Worse still Burzynski has been researching since the 70s. According to the ACS, “Treatment can cost from $7,000 to $9,500 per month or more, depending on the type of treatment, number of consultations, and the need for surgery to implant a catheter for drug delivery.” There is no convincing evidence from randomized controlled trials in the scientific literature that antineoplastons are useful treatments of cancer, and the FDA has not approved these products for the treatment of any disease. The ACS has stated since 1983 that there is no evidence that antineoplastons have any beneficial effects in cancer and recommended that people do not buy these products since there could be serious health consequences. A 2004 medical review described antioneoplaston treatment as a “disproven therapy” (Pubmed 15061600). In 1998, three oncologists were enlisted by the weekly newsletter ‘The Cancer Letter’ to conduct independent reviews of Burzynski’s clinical trial research. They concluded that the studies were poorly designed, not interpretable, and “so flawed that it cannot be determined whether it really works”. One of them characterized the research as “scientific nonsense”. In addition to questioning Burzynski’s research methods, the oncologists found significant and possibly life-threatening toxicity in some patients treated with antineoplastons

          155. I don’t see many corporate lobby groups coming to the common people for help.

          156. I mean are you THAT obtuse that you can’t see the difference? Oh, that’s right. Right wingers love corporations and hate their fellow man, particularly if they’re poor.

          157. Dude, I’m voting for Bernie Sanders in the primary. I also try to lead an evidence-based life. 34 billion dollars spent annually on alternative medicine in the US. You think with that amount of cash in hand you aren’t being influenced? As far as I can tell, from a lobbying perspective, the only difference between corporate lobbying and ANH lobbying is that for some reason you think the moral calculus changes because you are involved.

          158. Of course, Bernie Sanders, commie Senator from the Peoples Republic of Vermont. Patriots cringe & control freaks rejoice [& crack an ever-so-slight Hitlerian smile] when this sheep-wrapped wolf takes the stage.
            Assuming everything boils down to psychology, victims of past oppression, as Bernie’s family was, generally go one of two ways: Resistance against or alignment with their abusers.

          159. That is a matter of opinion. But you, Bob, are a liar, and that is a matter of fact.

          160. Tell me? What lobby group enticed Obama to appoint an ex-VP Monsanto to head the Codex controlled FDA?

          161. Go watch some interviews of some Bursynski’s miracles! These are patients that the big pharma trained physicians won’t touch because the radiation to the brain would likely kill them quicker than the brain cancer. Many of them had a softball size tumor in their brain that went away within 12 to 24 months, and some with a small pea sized tumor that is likely scar tissue. All that success without the risk of radiation, hair loss, and death!

          162. Bob Blaskiewicz is surely paid for his full time devotion to ignoring the facts and casting aspersions on antineoplastons, so it’s a complete waste of time to appeal to his reason.

          163. It is a government agency. There is no good reason why some favored global corporations should be in bed with it.

          164. Agree. But the prob is structural. You need people with the texhnical knowledge to regulate, and where do you get that? In industry. I agree that the bedfellows are…living in sin. That doesnt make ANP work though.

        2. Did you know that Whole Foods is a bigger corporation than Monsanto?

          1. LOL….. No I did not !!!!!!!!!!! John Mackey will be very happy to hear that !

          2. Absolute nonsense! Do your research. Monsanto is HUGE and is tied in with government agencies like the FDA, USDA, AMA, not to mention the White House and government “officials”. The list goes on. The system is totally broken and corrupt. Just follow the money…..

          3. Do you have any idea how HILARIOUS it is every time one of you conspiracy theorists actually types the words “do your research”?
            Check out these features of science denialism. Ring any bells?
            1) Cast doubt on the science.
            2) Question the scientists’ motives and integrity.
            3) Magnify any disagreements among the scientists; cite gadflies as authorities.
            4) Exaggerate the potential for harm from the science.
            5) Appeal to the importance of personal freedom.
            6) Object that acceptance of the science would repudiate some key philosophy.

        3. they sold their souls, once you do that, you are no longer human.
          they will pay a price, heaven does not accept everyone.

    2. I think there is no agency in this country that actually cares about anything of importance like the welfare of the citizens; but only about the greenback that supports them from following a certain protocol. The protocol has nothing to do with caring about well being, compassion, or health and is just for show. They mean nothing in the scheme of this country except for being bought and paid for; to say and do what those in charge say they should. 🙁

      1. We must be responsible for ourselves. Self-reliance in liberty, freedom, and health !!

        1. Not if someone has a disease that is killing them and if someone can cure that disease; that person is barred from treating them in the situation Mr. Howell!

          1. Its called “getting rid” of the person or system “barring” you from what you need. You know, fighting for your freedom? (That doesn’t mean drone bombing the middle east either)

          2. Which of course is irrelevant here because Burzynski has never produced evidence that ANP is any better than giving the tumor a stern talking to.

          3. Yes, years ago there was proof; b/c he cured people of the cancerous tumors. They shrank and went away, when all the while TX gave him a challenging time of it!

          4. Your reasoning is deeply flawed. You are building your conclusion “ANP works” into your premise. Show me good data. Heck, show me that cancer is caused by “lack of antineoplastons.”

    3. “Government” and “ethics.” Amazing that you almost got them into the same sentence.

    4. This is why I hate the FDA. If they can’t shut down this quack and con artist preying on the sick in their greatest time of need then they are ineffective and a waste of resources.

  3. I do not know why anything a patient wants to try for their treatment can be denied for an adult – surely adults are in charge of their own bodies, they do not belong to the FDA. I understand they have to try and protect children, and it could be argued that is the right thing to do until proven – but if I want to feed or inject myself with anything I think that is my RIGHT as an adult as long as I sign something that says it is my choice !!!!

    1. Interesting, I just read today where the black woman in NY who is touting the confederate flag and wearing a confederate flag t shirt said the exact same thing. Government is overstepping their bounds.

      1. The government is not infringing on the right of individuals to wear or possess the Confederate flag, nor is the ongoing controversy about such individual rights. The question being debated currently is whether GOVERNMENT entities should be displaying the flag. Individuals that are claiming they are being interfered with are trying to muddy the waters. This is like the general misunderstanding about the constitutional right to free speech. The right consists of freedom from government retaliation against you for what you say (with certain exceptions). It doesn’t cover what nongovernmental entities do.

        1. Yeah, it isn’t JUST infringing on those rights, its infringing on everyone’s basic human rights worldwide by trying to patent food/life and privatize water sources!

          1. Aren’t you a bit off-topic for my post? I was talking about an individual’s right to possess/display items that many folks would consider odious, and how the government has no control over that right, but how private entities (such as employers, for example) are not bound by that right. I said nothing at all about anyone patenting/privatizing anything. If you are angry about THOSE issues, perhaps you should talk to your legislators, who may have some control over laws that would affect said issues.

          2. Legislators? You mean those dumb crooks who rubberstamp the corporate agenda? Please, as if I would waste my time talking to petty financial crooks who have no conscience!
            No, my post isn’t off topic, it is relate-able because it still has to do with peoples rights and your right to live is more important than your right to display things.
            Think about it, if the govt wants to control the natural world, that means they want to control YOU. What you eat, breath, see, hear, touch; So this does relate to your post if you would just realize the SCOPE and MAGNITUDE of the corruption and pursuit of control of all life on the planet that I am discussing. If they want to control what you eat, they sure as hell are going to control what you see or display!

      2. Yeah that made up fight over the flag is so pathetic. Should just get rid of all the flags considering all the nations of the world only symbolize money and not principle!
        Just the govt trying to distract people while it spoonfeeds your children toxic herbicide residues.

      1. Move to an FDA-free zone. There are plenty of spaces where the evil arm of the FDA doesn’t reach. This doctor should move his clinic to Guatemala, Belize, Nicaragua… There are now “settlements” in Ecuador, Paraguay, Brazil… kind of communities of Europeans and Americans who are aware of all these conspiracies and decided to be free from all this. Please! there are options! you don’t have to be here and deal with the FDA, the Reserve, the CIA, the NRA, etc!

  4. Chemo can hurt intestines so nutrients don’t absorb..would not help the person heal. Combined with Chemo the experiment would not work…need to detox the Chemo first before they could do the other.

  5. Might the FDA be preparing for the sure rise in cancer rates from Fukushima? If this is allowed to stand we are on the verge of a very dark age.

      1. An old argument used by a closed mind. Surely you can hear the voices who say otherwise…?! Or, perhaps they do not matter to you.
        I used to dismiss it, as well… Until there were too many to ignore, and I started paying attention. But I am not beholden to a corporation, or alcohol…pharmaceutical concerns. I just started LISTENING to sick people.
        Perhaps you should try doing the same.

  6. Of course, I don’t know all of what his desire in this is but, I assume there are good reasons why he just doesn’t open a clinic across the border in Canada, Mexico, or any other country? I bet they would welcome alternative treatments. Kinda speaks to either Dr. Burzynski’s Greed or false story lines… If someone really truly wants to help “people”. Find the easier routes than to fight the FDA battle, which he’s seemingly done for so many of his years! Like Tesla, pass on the invention for all to benefit from… Let’s make the right to health care more important than making money and/or bashing on the government corruption that will always be there. History has proven that.

    1. Dr. Burzynski has failed at every level to submit “qualified candidates” for clinical trials per FDA protocols; there is absolutely no peer-reviewed clinical evidence that his concoction of horse urine, plus prayer, to the tune of over $7k per week, has ever helped anything or anyone, other than Dr. Burzynski’s pocket book.
      When a person is sick enough, desperate enough, and out of all logical hope, they will allow the Sanitation Engineer, who lives next door, to become their doctor.
      Quack would be too kind of a word to adequately describe what he is pushing…

      1. You know nothing, he won in court and yet they still take him back to court at the dismay of th judge. He hasn’t failed his patients you are a complete tool.

        1. I hold my doctors to a higher standard than “found a loophole that made exploiting the vulnerable legal.”

          1. Funny thing is the govt does the exact opposite of that; They WANT to create loopholes for corporations to hurt people and planet!
            Which is why they are the primarily problem of the world.

    2. I doubt your assertion of Greed on the part of Burzynski, and have seen that patient expenses and border stuff are rather a problem… and Canada wouldn’t work at all based on what they did to another cancer curer who charged nothing at all… I think he ended up in Holland….
      if there were a way to make the trek to some island where it’s peaceful a decently inexpensive and easily arrangeable option, then some genius should figure it out,
      but that may not be so easily done by Byrzynski

  7. No-one needs to die of cancer, but real cures are suppressed at the behest of the pharmaceutical industry. Cancer cures abound, but you may have to go abroad to get effective treatment like President Reagan did.

      1. James, in GERMANY, they actually cooked his cancer cells. Stuff you can’t get a way to patent can’t be used here, so in Europe, they can use a cancer killing concert, while here we get the sound of one instrument. Oh, BTW, Voice and James, thou protest TOO LOUDLY. Guys/ Girls, you are so obviously oncologists from Texas, some paid trolls, or some connection to pharma, that well, you can’t be taken seriously. Why? Way over the top in insults, lack of facts, like? the comment above. Like James, if you really wanted the truth, any sort of truth, you would have looked. It was right there out in the open. You don’t defend chemo: you just have to remove the alternates available in the court of public opinion. On the offensive, but really we all see right through you. The more you insult these people, the less they hear you.

  8. This doctor has been castigated by the government for endless years. i remember reading about his work in the early 80’s. Gov’t is afraid it works and there is no money for big pharma so it has to go.

  9. I believe all the patients who were given access to that drug last year are either all dead or failed the therapy. Burzynski is bad news. His chemotherapy does not work.

  10. Antineoplastins were known long before Burzynski. They were found to be ineffective and toxic so reputable physicians ceased to use them. To his credit he kept trying but as his failures and iatrogenic deaths mounted he changed little and merely stopped reporting the deaths in his advertising.
    This is a tragedy of an apparently good man gone bad. Cancer research now finds and attacks the specific genetic flaw in each cancer rather than expecting a magic cure for every cancer.
    Cancer research has moved on in the last two decades but Burzynski has not. His approach is much like the “vitamin B17” that was supposed to cure every cancer and suppressed by FDA conspiracy. Steve Jobs wasted his life on such magic cures.
    As each organization is tarred by his misrepresentation and asks Burzynski to leave he finds another and represents his previous tenure as successful but terminated by conspiracy.
    Besides a lesson to others, Burzynski provides an IQ test for potential patients.

      1. What’s “crude” is when people with paranoid and/or magical thinking believe bizarre things that have no evidence to support them. You might as well believe someone claiming the US government created cancer and that waving chicken bones while dancing will cure you.
        Anyone on Earth can tell you they have a cure for cancer, but if they refuse to actually prove it or outright destroy massive amounts of critical data (as Burzynski has indeed done), you have zero reasons to believe them. This isn’t about “the man” trying to keep people down, it’s about using critical thinking skills instead of swallowing every crazy idea you’re fed.
        Is the FDA wonderful? No, not even close. Is Burzynski a saintly miracle worker with no interest in money despite charging exorbitant prices, just being shouted down by people who love cancer? No. Painfully obviously no, if you do any research and use critical thinking skills.

          1. … what? When did I ever claim they WEREN’T? Obviously I realize this. China, Russia, the US, and every other massive polluter-country is destroying the world. That’s a no-brainer, and the scientific consensus is in agreement. That doesn’t have anything in the slightest to do with the FDA though – They oversee food and medicine safety. You’re picking a fight with the wrong people; we need to go after the oil and energy giants who make massive profits at the expense of our environmental safety and health.

          2. You need to understand that the regulatory agencies are just as corrupt as the other industries. They are all in cahoots to make as much money and party as the world burns and we all eat poison.
            LEARN MORE: Monsanto Employees and Government Regulators Are the Same People! (h t t p : / / bit . l y/1umKKgB ~ h t t p : / / w w w . organicconsumers . o r g/monsanto/revolvedoor.cfm)
            Monsanto, Wall Street and the So-Called Regulators (h t t p : / / bit . l y/1zjNZG8 ~ h t t p : / / w w w . organicconsumers . o r g/articles/article_14826.cfm)
            A Brief History of Monsanto and the US Government (h t t p : / / bit . l y/1pR9ygY ~ h t t p : / / w w w . organicconsumers . o r g/bytes/ob121.cfm#7)
            Monsanto Employees and Government Regulators Are the Same People!: “|Margaret Miller| is just one example. While working as a Monsanto researcher, she contributed to a scientific report for the FDA on Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone. Shortly before the report was submitted, Miller left Monsanto to work at the FDA, where her first job was to review the same report! Assisting Miller was another former Monsanto researcher, |Susan Sechen|.”
            |Elena Kagan| (h t t p : / / bit . l y/1okijzf ~ h t t p : / / organicconsumers . o r g/usda_watch.cfm#kagan)who, as President Obama’s Solicitor General, took Monsanto’s side against organic farmers in the Roundup Ready alfalfa case, is now on the Supreme Court.
            |Michael Taylor| (h t t p : / / w w w . organicconsumers . o r g/usda_watch.cfm#taylor) former Monsanto Vice President, is now the FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods.

        1. Tired old disinfo insults that define only your craven position.

          1. Tired old straw-man deflection that defines how you can’t back up your argument with logic or evidence. See? I can do it too. 🙂

          2. As I’m sure most of the people posting on this thread know, it’s a supreme waste of time to indulge an industry shill’s taunts, circular logic and specious demands for evidence.
            I am sympathetic to your vaccine injury as I understand autism can cause obsessive-compulsive thought and the senseless rambling of Wernicke’s aphasia, but with all due respect that’s all the more reason not to ‘debate’ you.
            I do recommend you watch BURZYNSKI: The Movie. The hopeful message and smiling images may calm you, and you may even learn something.

          3. Theeeeeen… why are you still posting?
            Yes, if you make extraordinary claims, you NEED proof. Otherwise I have no reason to believe you.
            I don’t think you know what circular logic is.
            “Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, “circle in proving”; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.”
            For example: “This cures cancer!” “How?” “It has antinoeplastons!” “How do they work?” “They cure cancer!” THAT is circular logic. Asking for proof is not.
            Don’t patronize me for having autism. By all accounts I have better critical thinking skills than you anyway. I do not need nor want your “sympathy,” I don’t want people to feel sorry for me, because *I* am not sorry for being born this way. Yes, BORN. ALL serious research on autism concludes that people are BORN with it.
            There is nothing wrong with me. I am not “injured,” nor am I damaged. You’re letting your prejudice show and get in the way of rational debate and thought. Again: There is no. Evidence. That vaccines. Cause. Autism. Autism has existed for a very long time. Even Mozart had autism. You know, BEFORE vaccines were invented.
            I wasn’t even close to angry until you started telling me that I’m “rambling” and “injured” because I have autism. Actually, I found you and that Reality of “Truth” guy (you know, the guy who told me to go kill myself) amusing because you’re incapable of grasping even the simplest means of debate and concept of proof.
            But yeah, I AM rather miffed at you now, because you’re one of those people who tells people like me that we’re damaged goods and unfit for integration in “normal” society.
            As for the movie – Yeah, no, I don’t think so. I don’t need celebrities to tell me what to think. I’m going with the scientists and experts who actually do their research and know what they’re talking about.

          4. I do not believe you have autism – I thought that was obvious from my facetious comment. To claim a disability is a common shill move, so you can do, well, exactly what you’re doing, using a fake condition to attack a fake issue with fake outrage.
            But if you do, in fact, have autism.. well…. nah.. I can’t even pretend to believe it… or that you’re even Sam, Sam.

    1. “Antineoplastins were known long before Burzynski. They were found to be ineffective and toxic so reputable physicians ceased to use them.”
      Please cite your sources for this claim.

  11. A 5-minute Google search shows that there have been zero peer-reviewed successful trials of this treatment. All “successful” trials have, of course, come from Dr. Burzynski. None were randomized or controlled (i.e., they almost all were used along with conventional chemo, which actually DOES work).
    There are numerous Burzynski patient accounts of being scammed into paying for extra “treatment” or sometimes “services” that should have cost a lot less (or even been free). Some were not informed that they were part of a trial until late in their treatment, believing up until then that this was a proven treatment.
    There are severe, life-threatening side effects of Burzynski’s “medicine” that include seizures and brain swelling. Again, there are zero peer-reviewed studies showing that any of this actually works. In fact, a Japanese study shows that you’d need a dose AT LEAST four times greater what Burzynski actually gives to patients to have any effect at all on cancer cells. Before you even get to a dose that high, you’d probably be dead from brain swelling caused by the moderate doses.
    The FDA is getting involved because it’s their JOB to keep quacks from peddling useless stuff with devastating side effects for profit to the desperate. It’s shameful that anyone is supportive of a con-artist peddling pseudoscience to steal from the dying. And yes, he HAS stolen from the dying, including the families of children with a 0% survival rate.
    Just because a medicine is “alternative” or “all-natural” doesn’t mean it’s safe or effective. People used to irradiate their water with naturally-occurring RADON via the “Revigator” because they thought it was healthy, among other radiation quack therapies that people used in the 1920s. And then some poor dupe lost his jaw from cancer and died from drinking radon-water, and thus the FDA started cracking down on quack therapy.
    I’m ending my email notifications for this site permanently. Harmless herbs and such are one thing. Demonstratively dangerous quack medicine peddled to the desperate and dying for a fortune is something else entirely.

    1. ‘peer reviewed’ is code for ‘medical insiders’. Dr. Burzynski is very much an outsider, a competitor, a THREAT.

      1. That isn’t even close to what it means.
        “Peer-reviewed” means that OUTSIDERS have reviewed and tested the data and that it has stood up against rigorous scrutiny. Literally every prescription medicine and surgical procedure ever has been peer-reviewed, otherwise every person taking a prescription or undergoing surgery would be a guinea pig.
        This stuff is peer-reviewed and tested over and over again for a reason – To keep people from DYING from poorly tested procedures, or at least keep people from wasting their money (and sometimes LIVES) on things that don’t work.
        Peer-reviewing is a vital, basic, essential part of SCIENCE. Before anything was tested or peer-reviewed we had “doctors” in the Dark Ages claiming they could prevent the plague with dried flowers and herbs because one person they used it on didn’t get the plague.
        Needless to say, one-third of Europe died regardless of how many posies were sprinkled on them.

        1. The ‘quack’ is from sharks who pretend to be ducks. ‘QUACK QUACK! Only chemo can help you!’

      2. Linda, what would it take to convince you that you are wrong about Burzynski?

        1. Ooh Bob I know this game! I answer ‘The facts prove I’m not’ and you launch a diatribe about magical thinkers! What fun!

          1. Try to deal with me as a person, not as a cartoon villain. What would it take to convince you that you are wrong. For me, I would be convinced by a quality study that met the standards for basic research into cancer cures. If that study were replicated independently, I would backtrack. I’d have to. Notice I’m bypassing the peer-reviewed thing here, because nothing is true or false because it passed peer-review. It’s true or false because it’s true or false. What would your standard of evidence be that you were wrong? Maybe better stated, “What facts do you have”? Because I’ve spent 3 years looking into this guy and if there is something I’ve missed, I need to know about it.

          2. A ‘cartoon villain’? Please try to deal with me as an adult, not a child.
            In partial answer to your question, I’ll ask you four easy questions that require just a yes or no answer, though please feel free to elaborate:
            1. Have you read The Burzynski Miracle, detailing Dr. Burzynski’s research and vetted reports of his cured patients?
            2. Have you read any of the books by Samuel S. Epstein MD on the cancer industry and its war against Dr. Burzynski?
            3. Have you watched the documentary BURZYNSKI? [you might want to ask the 89% of 212 5star reviewers on Amazon what would convince them they’re wrong]
            4. Have you read the court testimony of Burzynski’s patients, who have helped him prevail again and again over the last 30+ years against the bogus charges of his vicious competitor the cancer industry/FDA?

          3. Yes. I’ve read all of them. I’m in one of the Burzynski movies. The problem is that they rely on testimony, not good data. Burzynski claims a potential cancer cure. A HUGE claim, given the complexity of the diseases we call cancer. That means his evidence must be at least up to his claim, but he only gives us testimonials. The problem with testimonials is that they are the wrong type of evidence to establish efficacy. They are epistemologically unreliable and veridically worthless. You can see this in the Burzynski movie. If you slow down the film and look at the patient files that are being shown–you can do this for yourself– you will see that, for instance, the tumor of Jessica Ressel bounces around in size bigger, smaller, bigger, and the size correlates neither to time on treatment nor dose of ANP. It’s not behaving like a tumor, and therefore probably was not. Or you can look at Jodi’s files in the movie (they may be in the supplemental materials on the movie website…it’s been a while). Her tumor seems to nearly disappear right after a biopsy. Did the biopsy remove most of the tumor? It happens. And there are similar questions about all the other patients in there. It’s clear that the filmmaker did not understand the files he was given and shows. So, anecdotes are 1) the most compelling evidence and 2) the least reliable. No matter how many anecdotes, even if we are given hundreds or even thousands (which he doesn’t have…it’s always the same small group of about 20 people, as best I can tell), no amount of bad evidence equals a single bit of good evidence, a single controlled trial of quality that stands up to scrutiny. So, the stories you mention are interesting but unrevealing for what we’re trying to figure out. Thank you for engaging on this.

          4. I think what most people are getting at is why go after one person when the entire industry is perpetrating a toxic monopoly?
            If you set the precedent that one possible fraud must go, then they all must, Right? Or is the corrupt, toxic industry protected from consequences? (They think so, at least).

          5. “The problem is that they rely on testimony, not good data.“
            “The problem with testimonials is that they are the wrong type of evidence to establish efficacy. They are epistemologically unreliable and veridically worthless.”
            “So, anecdotes are 1) the most compelling evidence and 2) the least reliable.”
            Sorry, that’s just doublespeak. Anecdotal evidence/Individual experience – is actually the most compelling AND reliable evidence. So the industry simply insists the opposite is true despite all logic, thus handily ignoring all evidence ‘from the horses mouth’. It also lends plausible deniability for legalized genocide, oh excuse me, ‘iatrogenesis’, since ‘the devil made me do it’ isn’t a feasible defense.
            So let’s flush out the obvious: All human medical research is based on a group of INDIVIDUAL experiences. Oh but what about ‘double-blind studies and rigid protocol’? Look closely and you’ll see ‘veridically worthless’ props for studies designed with the pointless and expensive complexity that only the industry can afford.
            It’s surely no surprise to anyone truly paying attention that industry studies are notoriously rigged and deceitful junk. If they were not, the industry would collapse overnight from a mass customer exodus and the weight of 10 billion lawsuits. And the cancer and vaccine branches would be the first to go.
            Some professional debunkers claim the cured cancer patients in BURZYNSKI: The Movie are being paid to read a script. That’s a good one! Of course they know that honest personal experience is powerfully persuasive, despite industry shills squawking in our virtual faces ‘ANECDOTAL ANECDOTAL! NOTHING TO SEE! RAAAK!’ So…‘Let’s call them liars and see if that sticks!’
            You devote an entire paragraph to comically dissecting some visual minutia from the movie, as though it’s some kind of proof of deceit. Then you state “And there are similar questions about all the other patients in there.” And.. “…it’s always the same small group of about 20 people, as best I can tell”. Sure, make a wild accusation and avoid libel by sly phrasing: “as best I can tell”, “I believe”, “there are similar questions “, it seems to me”, “it’s clear that”, “no doubt”, “surely”, “there’s evidence to suggest” etc.etc.etc. It’s clearly your job to obfuscate the facts about the curative power of antineoplastons, not consider them, and to hone your specious rhetoric for better debunkery next time.
            So, no thanks for engaging on this.

          6. Think about the fact that Human Perception is not the end of all things, it isn’t true or false. IT IS A PERCEPTION! We don’t know if it is real, it is merely what our brain is telling us that our eyes see, which could be different for everyone!
            Science and the extent of human knowledge at the same, it isn’t the ‘end all’ of all things, it is merely the extent of what we know right now which some could be right and I’m guessing that most of it is wrong!
            Humans don’t know everything, they haven’t even begun to learn and meanwhile they’ve been discarding/censoring/controlling/abusing/manipulating more knowledge than they have been gaining!

    2. Haha saying chemo works is like saying pouring acid on somebody is a good way to put them out when they are on fire.
      Killing the cells is not a “cure for cancer”.

      1. Uh, no. You have no understanding of how chemo actually works.
        Chemo works by preventing fast-multiplying cells from dividing. This is a key property of cancerous cells – They are abnormal cells that divide very rapidly, forming tumors. Unfortunately there are other, non-cancerous cells in the body that are supposed to be fast-multiplying, such as blood cells and digestive lining cells. These cells can be adversely affected by chemo, causing severe adverse symptoms. Literally the only true thing in your statement is that chemo isn’t a cure. You are correct, and I never stated it was, because it isn’t. There is no “cure for cancer” at this point in time. Chemo does not have a 100% success rate, especially in Stage 4 patients, by which point it is simply too late using current medicine to save them. Chemo, while reducing tumor size, does not always completely wipe out the cancer cells. However, it does have a decent success rate, despite being harsh on the healthy cells. That’s a lot better than nothing, and a lot better than a phony cure where all the test patients died within a few years.
        I don’t think people here understand how amazingly difficult it actually is to rid someone of cancer – If you have just a few cancerous cells left, they will quickly multiply and start the process all over again. It’s pretty much impossible at this point in time to single out cancerous cells for treatment as well.
        It’s not completely hopeless though. There are REAL studies out there yielding promise. Might I direct your attention to angiogenesis inhibitors? They have been showing promising results by preventing blood vessels from forming around and in tumors, effectively cutting off the tumor’s supply of oxygen and nutrients necessary for growth and spread. It’s not perfect and there’s still a ways to go, but it’s actually been tested by multiple institutions and it’s something worth looking into. It’s certainly more worthy of your time than what Burzynski’s peddling.

          1. Except that it’s not? A lot of chemo ISN’T radiation, you’d know that if you did 5 minutes of research. And lolno, I’m not a “shill” for being educated and having all the facts, not just the ones I personally agree with. If I happened to get cancer, yes, I would undergo chemo. Because the success rate is much greater than for Burzynski’s patients, who invariably die within a couple of years. Always. I’d rather live than die. It’s as simple as that.

          2. Eat better food, stop eating hotpockets.
            Cancer is what happens to people who have poor genetics and poor diet.
            Maybe if you didn’t eat slews of herbicide residue, you wouldn’t have to worry about f-ing cancer. What a concept!
            Maybe if they weren’t passing bills that allow Agent Orange crops, you wouldn’t be in such poor health!

  12. The FDA is in partnership with the Medical Society. If Dr. Burzyunski has a way to
    treat patients and possibly cure them especially if this is their last resort, a compassionate
    Medical Society would allow the drugs Dr. B. has. But let’s all face it. The Medical Society
    is not about curing people of their diseases, the Medical Society is about making money.
    If they found a cure for cancer a lot of people would be out of work. There will never be a
    cure for cancer while the Medical Society and the Cancer Association make all the decisions
    of what drugs to use to continue to make people suffer until they die. I my friends are a
    Registered Nurse and have seen this go on for the last 50 years. I no longer donate to the
    Cancer Society because most of the money goes to Administrative Salaries, just like the
    Red Cross. Now I only donate to the Animal Societies that do not test on Animals. It is just
    disgusting and sickening what these so called scientists do to innocent animals.
    Try going Holistic with some Conventional therapy. Get in touch with Dr. B. also and get
    his opinion also before starting any conventional chemo and radiation.

  13. Texas has spent over 60 MILLION $$ TRYING to prosecute DR Brazinski who is trying to HELP people. At the same time criminals in Texas serve about one month for every year of their sentence due to overcrowded jails. Prosecute DOCTORS and let criminals off so light? It only makes sense if you understand the medical mafia.

  14. The ANH should be ashamed of itself for supporting one of the most monstrous quacks in the country. This fraud drains the families of cancer patients of their money while giving absolutely worthless “treatments”. He belongs in jail.
    Urge the FDA to shut this beast down.

    1. Voice, you are obviously a plant. Dr. B has successfully defended his treatment in Federal court a number of times because it works amazingly well. After all the years of the cancer industry’s “War on Cancer”, the survival rate is still poor. Dr. B’s treatment has tripled the survival rate of even the worse cancers, glioblastomas, in the hardest to treat patients, children. The cancer treatment industry is so afraid of the success of his treatment that they tried to steal his patent while he was defending himself in federal court. The FDA’s minions are the ones who should be brought up on medical ethics charges and you, Mr. Voice, should be ashamed of yourself for spouting the drool in your posts. Why don’t you post your name charlatan.

      1. Dude. You can’t back anything up with a reputable study. The FDA let him experiment on children for decades and … we know as much about ANP now as we did when he started–nothing. Show me your homework. Show me the tripled survival rate. And you can look me up.

        1. And that’s exactly the problem I have with this doctor’s followers. I’m a person of faith, and when it comes to faith, I do believe without seeing. However, this doctor is talking Science, and in science, I do want to see evidence to believe. Everything else if faith. And faith does move mountains. Just don’t try to sell faith as science, Kenneth…

        2. Wrong. The FDA lets MDs experiment on children, first via vaccination, followed by toxic drugs to ‘treat’ the vaccine damage, including chemo for the rampant childhood cancers triggered by vaccines. And parents MUST comply or lose their children!

      2. Where is your data? I doesn’t look like you did your homework.
        In all honesty, Kenneth, really, put your hand on your heart, and in all honesty, answer these questions: Do you have 100% unquestionable evidence of what you’ are writing? Have you seen the patients? Do you believe what you write about took place, or you do know for a fact, based on scientific process, that what you write is fact? I really, really, really want to believe in the effectiveness of this Doctor’s therapies, but I don’t seem to find any evidence about the success rates.

    2. Big Pharma doesn’t do the same exact thing? Big Food isn’t creating food that intentionally makes people unhealthy? Seems like you are uninformed of the real problem as the US has turned making people unhealthy into a business and they want to expand worldwide! Remember that Cancer is a Perpetration, not a disease.
      It is caused by toxic chemicals and thus there is no cure other than being healthy, eating REAL food and avoiding toxic society!

      1. No. “Big Pharma” actually has to demonstrate safety and efficacy for the drugs they produce.
        Your science denial is pretty deep if you think cancer is a plot. It’s actually the name applied to hundreds of different cancerous diseases.
        And nothing you said remotely addresses the fact that this guy is a dangerous quack.

        1. I guess to a shill, pointing out how the system is corrupt and poisons people doesn’t “address” the issue, but for people with a BRAIN, it does!
          Why talk about one person when the whole system is poisoning and ruining life? Just because you can’t accept that the US isn’t as great as it claims, doesn’t mean that it isn’t true! Coward! Keep living in denial and spare us all your stupid responses.

          1. 1. There’s no such thing as an industry shill. Go ahead and try to get a job doing what you think I’m doing. Good luck with that.
            2. How “corrupt” any “system” is has naught to do with how corrupt Dr. Burzynski is. Nobody has evidence showing that his crap works, but I have plenty about how it doesn’t.
            You have a brain. Learn how to use it.
            Links have been posted multiple times in other comments. Find them.

          2. Wow, you are braindead.
            I thought you were lost in the wilderness? How are you on the internet?
            I wish you really would go get lost in the wild, you’d perish for sure.
            (And that would be a benefit to us all.)
            Stop typing and go do something else with your life, you are another lost cause, just like everyone else who supports toxic chemical monopolies.

          3. You have no rational argument, no evidence. So you have to resort to kindergarten-level ad hominem. Do you see how sad that is? You’ve reduced your entire position to “I’m right because you’re a poopy head”.
            Very persuasive.

          4. If you like cancer and chemo so much, by all means go get them. But you don’t have any ground to stand on to tell others what they can or cannot do with THEIR bodies.
            Get lost.

          5. I haven’t told anybody what to do with their bodies. I’ve pointed out that this so-called doctor is a cruel monster who hurts people and rips them off.
            Get real.

          6. I don’t care about this meaningless “doctor”, I care about the fact that the industry is indeed corrupt and is poisoning all of life. If you refuse to see that, THAT IS NOT MY PROBLEM!
            Enjoy your day.

          7. Not a troll, a Texas oncologist who feels the need to sound the alarm, who is used to being respected and listened for advice, who can’t comprehend why he is not being respected and revered here, and who wants to save the world, he is of course offended that we aren’t listening.

          8. Reality, I unknowingly married a pathological liar with unresolved anger and it took years to fully realize that no matter how urgent it feels to call them on their toxic bullsh*t projections, it is futile and draining to engage. They are parasitic, shameless, relentless and without conscience. And they thrive on attention, ‘narcissistic supply’ – good or bad makes no difference. They create only chaos and are first, last and always a SUPREME waste of time.
            I do think the troll said one true thing, tho it lied about why: you’ll never see ‘trolls for hire’, which would defeat their devious purpose. So part of their shtick is to call delusional whoever calls them out. As my husbad once confessed, every liar knows that even when caught in the act, ‘deny deny deny’.
            I imagine many are approached by troll hunters when they publicly exhibit the required pathology for the job. Others have shady connections like any criminal enterprise. And they’re multiplying like fleas, thanks to the combined force of the internet, corrupt gov/industry and a growing epidemic of vaccine-induced sociopathy and psychopathy. No job shortage for liars in the age of deceit.

  15. The FDA is a SYMPTOM of rampant corruption and organized crime throughout our government and political system. Get rid of these parasites, ONCE AND FOR ALL !!!

  16. The marketplace for the pharmaceutical industry is the human body – but only for as long as the body hosts diseases. Thus, maintaining and expanding diseases is a precondition for the growth of the pharmaceutical industry.
    While the promotion and expansion of diseases INCREASE the market of the pharmaceutical investment industry; …. Prevention and root cause treatment of diseases DECREASE long-term profitability; therefore, they are avoided or even obstructed by this industry.

    1. And in their pursuit of the value-less human fabrication, they lost sight of what really mattered and destroyed themselves along with the rest of life on the planet.
      These crooks will pay one day, they are not exempt. Nobody is.

  17. I heard about Dr. Burzynski and watched some documentaries about him and as a BC survivor anything having to do with cancer piques my curiosity. The last thing I saw about his work was a video about a young English woman with an inoperable brain tumor and coming to Texas for treatments. I am not sure if she eventually died, but just the battle that a person has to go through for testing things and yet, untested vaccines are pushed out every year. pHARMa the trade organization representing this vaccine industry in their trade publication boasts of 270 new vaccines – some of them with genetically modified stuff in them. Holy Cow!! And another working paper from some “organizational steering group” about how to get more adults to comply with vaccination. As a cancer survivor – you are inundated with plenty of stuff & and people, to volunteer and be on display event after event. Yuk!!! While I am extremely grateful to be alive 25 yrs after cut,burn,poison, I have learned the importance of healthy eating, rest, being outside and staying away from doctors who want to prescribe and vaccinate.
    I’ve also watched Ty Bollinger’s series on Cancer Cures. Interesting stuff.

    1. The woman who was the “complete cure” in the last Burzynski movie is dead of her tumor. Because it doesn’t work and the filmmaker does not have the integrity to recut the movie. Also, his cousin died of a tumor during Burzynski’s treatment. They all die.

      1. Without any kind of actual investigation, there is no way to tell what she died from.
        But you can most likely pin it on the toxic monopoly in this poisoned society, instead of on the dude who attempted to “cure her”.
        What resulted in her being poisoned in the first place? It wasn’t this “doctor”.

      2. How many patients have oncologlists tortured and killed, Bob? Or can’t you count that high?

        1. Burzynski has a proven success rate of no good studies whatsoever. When inspectors examined his reported results, they found that his results were inflated by 2/3, basically accounting for the “2/3” success rate his supporters have claimed. So any improvement is a vast improvement over that quack.

          1. And who are these mysterious ‘inspectors’?
            You quack me up, you really do.

          2. Joel Martinez, Cynthia F. Kleppinger, and Hugh M. McClure, who were at the Clinic for 2 months, between Jan and March 2013

          3. You can contact these mysterious people here and ask them your mysterious self. 4040 North Central Expressway, Suite 300
            Dallas, TX 75204
            (214) 253- 5200 Fax: (214) 253-5314

          4. I thought that was understood. Who else is qualified to review trials? Im afraid you would not accept the word of anyone who came to a different conclusion than you think they should have. Though i tell you, it seems a lot like blaming the health inspector for finding a rat at your favorite restraunt.

    1. Sure, the problem is finding a court that will take the case let alone rule it fairly.
      Which is why I say we must destroy the system and anyone who facilitates it.
      Much easier and an actual solution instead of a sham/scam/deceit~!

      1. There are far more of us than Them! They’re like cancer cells, but not enough immune cells are alert to the threat from being propagandized into confusion and apathy. So how do we undo the globalists’ blatant divide & conquer strategy of race, religion and politics? The internet has been most successful, and I suspect it’s why they’re now going to crack down on it beginning next year, thanks to the Orwellian named ‘Net Neutrality’.
        I did read something hopeful, that a recent study estimates that much of the military would defend the Constitution over executive orders against U.S. citizens, including about 75% of Marines! The bad news is, Obama is responding by purging true patriots from the military. Do you know of Jade Helm 15, Reality?

        1. Yes I have heard of JH15. Net neutrality isn’t a bad thing in the U.S., only the EU has highjacked it into something bad. You always have to remember that they (the crooks) are merely destroying themselves.

          1. I see your point, though I’m concerned about the ugly, painful and long process that leads to their reaping. The more ignorance, the more pain. We’re all in this together, like it or not.
            As to Net Neutrality, I’m not familiar with the EU’s machinations, but the U.S. needs no net regulating to speak of, so Net Neutrality is surely censorship via bogus regulation. Too much awakening as they gather our intel, so it’s crackdown time.

          2. Well unless its some kind of facade, it is actually ensuring that we have open internet. Net Neutrality is something, in the US anyway, that is preserving our ability to have fast and open internet. The corporations are fighting it and spreading misinformation because they were not able to get their fast lanes and relegate us to slow lanes. If you really do your research you find that there is a lot of confusion being projected (intentionally, after all — this is how these corporate goons confuse enough people to get their way!). Anything you see in the mainstream is subject to propaganda (Newspapers, news broadcasts, televisions, movies, etc). What the corporations say is only intended to serve their interest, no matter how good it sounds. Check out wikileaks for more information on how the E.U. net neutrality is different from the U.S. version and why that matters.

          3. We have an open internet, too open, apparently. From what I understand, it is a facade, with an appropriately Orwellian name – this is the gov we’re talking about, after all. We’ll know soon enough. 2016 is reportedly the year it begins, unnoticed by many at first. And we’ll have to start paying for what is now free – more limits & expense, in true gov fashion.

          4. Well I don’t really give your words any credence, sadly this is not one of the things I can agree with until I see it happen. As far as I know what you mentioned is exactly what our version of NN prevents. You might have got bit by an industry propaganda bug who merely wants to turn you on your own best interests (just like with GMO labeling). If it does turn out this way, though, I suppose we’ll know for sure then won’t we!

          5. We sure will! So two questions: In your opinion, what about the internet needs correcting? And why do you trust the government to take rightful action in this case, when it acts against us in nearly all others, while ALWAYS claiming otherwise?
            Would you agree that gov/industry would benefit by censoring the only free, universally accessible source for factual info on their corrupt policies, like that reported above? Some say internet censorship is impossible, but imo that’s wishful thinking, as it’s already being done elsewhere.
            If I don’t respond again it’s only because it’s becoming increasingly more challenging to log on here – apparently someone with techie skill doesn’t like me.. so every time requires more finagling and I think I’m running out of finagles!

          6. I am always a skeptic and of course I know they are messing with the internet. I don’t really know what to tell you because you’re right, there is no real way to know whether it is legitimate or not other than I know that we are not on slow lanes with the corporations getting their fast lanes right now! If you read the legislation, it is good, but that doesn’t mean the crooks follow it or want to allow it.
            I can’t give you a good answer that will solve the mystery because it is defined by peoples choices and I have no say in that other than to advise them that, hey, it is in your (their) best interest to keep the internet the way the billions that use it want it, or you will have to deal with those billions.
            Politicians know when they push too many buttons, unfortunately it seems like they are starting to really like it.

  18. What is the controversy? The U.S. incorporated WANTS U.S. citizens to die so they can be replaced with illegal immigrants who don’t know their rights and don’t care about being poisoned!

  19. if there is still any doubt about the validity of Dr Burzynski’s treatment please order the film Burzynski from nettflix. This will remove all doubt.

  20. Keep up the good fight, these crooks will not win because they have aligned with the losing side.
    Your sister is fine, she is in a free place of pure energy where we all want to be; Where there is no anguish and where it is pure joy (where the crooks will never get to go).
    I couldn’t have said your statements better myself.

  21. I am afraid the truth is our government is evil. As all governments seem to grow into evil monsters when they get big and powerful, corruption follows. We created this gov to secure our rights and the Constitution was written to limit the size scope and power of the Federal Government to allow the people to remain in control at the State level.
    Trying to determine which gov agency is most evil, FDA, EPA, DEA, IRS, BATF I could go on but if you look at what they actually do and the people they harm.. it is criminal. The only thing worse is probably the UN.

  22. Nice idea, unless you take into account the fact that Congress, an institution as corrupt if not more corrupt then the FDA, would be charged with replacing the FDA. As bad as things are now, do you really want Congress involved in replacing the FDA? That’s the stuff nightmares are made of.

  23. Well, ignorant conspiracy theorists who wish sickness and by extension death on people who AREN’T ignorant conspiracy theorists make ME sick, so I guess we’re even.
    Pretty sick and twisted wishing catastrophic illness on me “to know the truth.” I’m sorry about your sister, I really am, but that doesn’t make it acceptable to say disgusting things like that to people. No certified doctor EVER “promises” that a cancer patient undergoing chemo will live. That isn’t how medicine works. They give a percentage of chance of survival. Doctors are not miracle workers, they aren’t God, and they don’t perform magic. They are imperfect, just like everyone else. Again, I am sorry your sister suffered. That doesn’t make it okay to tell other people they need to suffer.
    Let me tell YOU a story. I have autism. I am sick to death of hearing people whine about how vaccines cause them despite having zero evidence to support them, especially since their poster-child charlatan who made the claims was investigated BY the scientific community and was found to have fabricated data and bribed children for blood samples at a birthday party. Now, because of this poppycock vaccine scare, people have been telling me in so many words that it’s worse to have autism than let a kid die from a preventable disease. Don’t whine to me about your conspiracy-nut “crimes against humanity” when there is an active, extremely vocal part of the population who believes that I and others like me should suffer being crippled by disease and die rather than exist as we are. It’s sick, and a thoroughly debunked belief perpetuated by prejudice, fear, stigma, and thinly-veiled eugenics. Medicine isn’t the problem, it’s pop-culture quacks and celebrities peddling crap that isn’t true with the more gullible segments of the population passing the fake info around like a disease.
    If you don’t like science or real medicine, by all means, go live in the Amazon or in an isolated African tribe. Give up your computer, phone, all other electronics, electricity, never see a doctor again in any situation, never take any over-the-counter medicine for things like colds, never use life-saving antibiotics if you get a serious illness, and go live in a hut infested by mosquitoes with malaria and yellow fever. Grow/gather your own food and hunt, because there are no grocery stores out there and ALL food in stores is grown and bred using SCIENTIFICALLY proven processes (yes, even the stuff with organic labels). We’ll see how long you last without any science in your life, because unlike religion you can’t pick and choose which part of the scientific process you want to “believe” in.
    Science has strict rules because it follows the principle that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That’s all there is to it. If it can’t hold up to scrutiny and questioning, IT ISN’T SCIENCE. It’s amazingly pompous and arrogant to claim you know better than every accredited scientist out there, considering that you aren’t, you know, a SCIENTIST.

      1. lolno I’m not a shill, I’m just not intolerably stupid or ignorant, and I don’t tell people to go kill themselves. You’re just a real class-act, aren’t you? 😉

        1. When is the next Flu Vaccination? I hear you’re up for the next round.
          My desire to rid the world of scum is born of dealing with unending, unmeasurable stupidity such as yours. Keep paying taxes that make cancer food, because its so great right!?

          1. Stay classy, hun. 🙂 Vaccines don’t cause autism, and I already have autism anyway. Even if they did, and they still don’t, I’d rather have autism than die from preventable diseases. Just come out and say you support eugenics and the eradication of autistic individuals – Everyone knows “vaccines cause autism” is code for “death is better than autism.” 😉
            I’m not sure when the next round is. I’ll be getting it though, because I don’t want to get sick. More importantly, I don’t want OTHER people to get sick, namely small children and the elderly who could die from stupid people choosing to put themselves and others at risk. It would be selfish and immoral of me NOT to get vaccinated. 😉

    1. “[you] wish sickness and by extension death on people who AREN’T [like me] make ME sick, so I guess we’re even.”
      I actually wrote “May you know the truth in the most personal way” – YOU defined the truth as ‘sickness and death’. So it seems we’re in agreement after all.
      And try ‘Jane, you ignorant slut’, it’s funnier than ‘ignorant conspiracy theorists’. Maybe you’ll be laughed with and not just at.
      And how do you find the time to diatribe, Sam? It must be a full-time job! I know an eloquent sociopath who really needs work – is there an opening?

  24. This whole world is ruled by historic corruptions beyond human interventions Its a spiritual revolution and what side you choose will either destroy or pull you out of the fire. The Words are becoming unsealed Pray for Jesus to help us through all this turmoil and suffering. When evil collapses upon itself (money) we will only have one another to get through these ungodly times manifesting upon this world. May God help us Amen

  25. Americas are dying at
    the hands of Republican governors, among other murderers, who are punishing
    every-day, hard-working, honest, loving, wholesome Americans into financial
    ruin, poor health and even death by refusing them Medicaid benefits at a price
    they could be paying instead of a price they cannot. This is murder, plain and
    simple,There is blood on the hands of Republicans
    Lawmakers Fought To Keep These People Uninsured. Now They Have To Rely On Hope.
    Posted: 04/21/2014
    Affordable Care Act was supposed to make sure that lower-income people like
    TwarDokus could access health insurance. But because many states refused to
    implement a key ACA benefit, there’s a gap in the coverage.
    For people
    making between 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level, the
    health care law provides tax credits to help pay for private insurance.
    TwarDokus and her husband don’t qualify for that aid because their income is
    significantly less than 100 percent of the poverty level for two people.

    1. Both parties are corrupt, the entire system is corrupt.
      No need to make it one or the other, but I seem to get your point.
      You are trying to say, by them refusing to participate in the awful ACA they are killing people.
      But the reality is, with the ACA passing, millions of people have lost their health insurance and the system is so inadequate (intentionally so) that, THAT is why people are dying at alarming rates. They’ve lost the medical care they had before, or their network, etc. The ACA is a sham, a govt take over of one sixth of the economy and a literal Death Panel just as was being spoken of years ago. Nobody ever listens or seems to take action until it is too late and already in affect.

      1. HOGWASH,,,are you expecting another WALL STREET COLLAPSE….FINACIAL MELTDOWN,,,AND
        HOUSING CRISSIS,,,,like we
        had under the last president? The single most important thing we want to achieve is
        for President
        Obama to be a one-term president.­” ~Mitch
        McConnell, Senate Minority
        Leader, (R-Ky.), October 2010,, NOT
        GOVERNING,,OR JOBS,, OR THE ECONOMY ,,, McConnell vows obstructionism will continue
        into Obama´s 2nd term. THE REPUBLICANS AND ONLY REPUBLICANS have tried to destroy my healthcare 59 times at 1.5$$ million per FAILED ATTEMPT unfortunatly I have pre existing condition sand could never even get insurqance before

        1. I’m not saying that the republicunts aren’t doing stupid things, I’m just saying that the entire system is doing stupid things. Take it easy on the crazy caps and commas for periods, dude.
          I made an old list while the ACA was being implemented, here it is:
          ACA/Healthcare Law Problems and Failures:
          The law is now unconstitutional because it forces Volunteer fire departments to close because they work more than 30hrs a week and cannot afford the fines involved to operate under the law which puts hundreds of thousands of rural citizens and neighborhoods at risk and the constitution declares that you must protect states and citizens and the law is putting both at risk of direct harm; The IRS has yet to respond and lawsuits may be filed
          Paper records/prescriptions must be done electronically and that burden forces small town doctors to quit because they cannot afford to switch
          People cannot keep their pre-existing insurance policy/doctor/hospital/etc and must be forced into the new exchange for it to work
          Doctors pay rates are so low they will not participate in the Healthcare Law because the low rates do not even cover their operating costs
          Top Quality hospitals are not included in the exchanges, so even if someone manages to enroll properly they get low quality coverage
          President continues to lie and falsely claim that there are no solutions offered by other political parties but he ignores those such as HR2300 (Empower Patients First Act)
          Deductibles are, on average, 42% higher than they were before this law came into effect
          Medicare/Medicaid enrollee’s will bankrupt cities due to the vast amount of new people being forced into the system that states and local governments cannot afford
          Medication prescriptions are not covered and if you are able to keep it the cost will be much higher than before and without reimbursement
          Paying for higher costing plans only prepays your copayment and will not net you a more expansive doctor/hospital network
          Lack of participating doctors and hospitals within the exchanges leave people with inadequate medical coverage
          Medical device industry is being overburdened by high taxing caused by the law, eventually forcing them to leave the country
          Portal website that people must use to sign up doesn’t function properly leaving enrollee’s un-enrolled
          Website is insecure, leaving peoples vital information such as Medical/Identity/Bank/Personal info at high risk
          Website doesn’t inform Insurer’s of accurate, usable information, leaving people un-enrolled even if they attempt to sign up
          Website doesn’t have any payment back-end for insurer’s to receive payments, thus people are not enrolled properly
          Website cost $600m+ dollars of taxpayer funds yet doesn’t function as intended and could of been built fully functional for $5-$10 million
          System has no safeguards to prevent fraud, allowing anyone to claim they require subsidy without any checks and balances whatsoever
          Insurer’s, unable to receive payments from the website systems, receive unfettered money by the govt from the taxpayers to fund policies
          Taxpayers pay a Trillion dollar bailout to the insurance companies due to the insurer’s not being able to make a profit because of the law
          More people lost their insurance policies than have enrolled into the system due to lack of functionality and unattractive policy/pricing
          People will be penalized for not purchasing policies that they cannot technically purchase
          Government officials advocating the law are exempting themselves from it to keep their current, better insurance, paid for by taxpayers
          The youths that are being forced to subsidize the old and sick will not sign up to pay double retail rates, thus prices inflate
          Premiums and Deductibles are Unaffordable, causing destitution among families who use to be able to afford their old policies
          Lack of competition due to no privatization will allow insurer’s to set unreasonable rates at any time for any reason they see fit
          Family policies do not include children under the age of 2 years old, leaving vulnerable family members uncovered under family policies
          People being forced against their personal or religious beliefs to pay for other peoples Birth Control/Abortions/Sexual healthcare
          People will be forced to pay for Maternity Leave or Pediatrics care even if neither applies to them
          People have lost their old policies, are no longer covered and cannot enroll, thus if any medical issues arise they are simply out of luck
          People can avoid paying the penalty by simply avoiding tax returns, because that is what the penalty/fine will be taken from
          Businesses cannot afford neither the new requirements by the law, or the penalties in some cases, and thus go out of business or sell it
          Businesses are being demotivated to hire more than 49-50 workers so they will not be hit by the regulations/requirements of the law
          Businesses have cut Full Time workers down to Part Time workers in an effort to avoid the regulations under the law
          Businesses Redefine Full Time Work Hours to Part Time Work Hours (29hrs a wk), part time workers have been laid off to avoid the laws fines
          Government continues to make false claims that children are covered for free but nothing is free someone has to pay with higher premiums
          Government has threatened to put leans against private property in an effort to enforce the penalties
          Government has re-written the law many times, after it was ruled constitutional, bringing into question the constitutionality of the law
          Government continues to provide exemptions to certain groups (Unions, themselves, etc) when the law fails to live up to the hype
          Government provides tax exemptions to groups (Union, etc) which forced the rest of the country to foot the bill for them
          Government picks and chooses which dates/deadlines or parts of the law it wishes to uphold and continues to falter on those requirements
          Government knowingly falsely claimed that people could keep their policies when it knew that people must be forced into the new exchanges
          Government forcing people to buy a third party product against their will, even if they do not want it and penalizing them if they do not
          Government controls a Sixth (1/6th) of the economy, giving them more power that they do not need and cannot use or deliver on correctly
          I stopped bothering to list them, we know the “law” is being used against us as a destructive device so why bother listing anything when we know it will only do bad, because that is the US, bad.

          1. The law is not uncostitutional volunteers dont get paid fool…were you born stupid or do you watch fox news,,,
            must be done electronicaly…BULLSHTT,,,
            I liked my old policy so I kept y old policy so I kept my old policy,,BULLSHTT

          2. It is not based on being paid, did you only read the first paragraph (maybe that is all you’re capable of?). It is based on HOURS WORKED, which if you had the comprehension, you would of been able to understand by reading.
            The doctors have to join an electronic system, that isn’t bs.
            You couldn’t keep your old policy (unless it was already a crap policy in an awful network to begin with, which would explain your condition), this is proven, so you are bs.
            Some of it may of come from faux news, but that doesn’t mean ACA is justified or good.

          3. HEY I have an idea why dont you REPEAL IT,,,you can try another 59 times if youlike

          4. I’m not a republican, you are just like my dad … lost in the distracting, divisive politics instead of focusing on the entire system as the culprit.
            Another lost soul? Maybe one day you’ll learn…sad that the youths must educate the elders in this day’n’age.

          5. Hey, at least you used periods instead of comma’s this time!
            I don’t know you, that is for sure … I don’t want to judging from your picture, no offense.

          6. EYE WULL SPULL EZZ

          7. 99% of your fellow Americans are suffering at the hands of the leaders you believe in, in league with the repubs you’re propagandized to entirely blame. And you’re viewing your allies – your fellow citizens of a different political stripe who are suffering the SAME abuses from the SAME criminals as you are – as enemies, falling for the divide & conquer tactic. Race, religion, politics are all used to divide us so we don’t join forces, because there are at least 90% of us to their 10%. The goal? World communism, techno-style. Megalomania didn’t die with Hitler. It’s alive and well, and so was he until not too long ago.
            Lies, more lies and Big Lies. And if we don’t come together soon, the world is screwed. So please, Know Thy TRUE Enemy.

          8. “Your OPINION has been duly noted
            and properly filed”
            ,,,,FACTS that is if you know of ANY Some people
            can build an entire philosophy from stupidity.

          9. Sure, which facts? And why so hostile? Did you get lost on your way to Yahoonews? What are your thoughts on the subject of this article?

        2. Don’t be fooled by charm. One thing I’ll say for Bush, he was a terrible liar.

    1. lol wow. Paranoid, much? I don’t work in the medical field, so no one’s paying me. I’m actually a cartoonist. I’m voicing my ~opinion~, one that happens to actually be a lot closer to reality than yours, and you’re getting asshurt about it. I guess it’s easier to believe that everyone else is bought off instead of entertaining that idea that “Well gosh, I might be WRONG about something! Other people have differing OPINIONS! Who knew??”
      Guess what? People like you who deny reality and maliciously tell the sane to “go play in traffic” or wish cancer on them are part of the lunatic fringe of society and will inevitably die out along with all the end-of-worlders, tea-partiers, global warming denialists, tin-foil hat brigade, and Illuminati conspiracy theorists. No one has to give you “equal footing” or entertain your delusions. That’s the same reason no one is seriously going to allow Creationism in public schools. It’s absurd, unproven, and then we’d have to give “equal footing” to other absurd notions, like the belief that all life was sneezed onto a tissue by God.

  26. The FDA will go to any lengths necessary to cover for the giant corporate entities of the drug industry who produce pure poison that is hurting and killing people every day. They have invented many illnesses in the last 10 yrs. just to sell people drugs they don’t need. While they go out of their way to block people from telling each other about natural treatments for things that can actually cure many real illnesses that are making the corporate folks uber rich by treating them and treating them and treating them endlessly for the rest of your life.

  27. There is NO FDA in Guatemala. Why doesn’t the good doctor move his clinic to an FDA-free zone? I’m sure his well paying patients will go there. Desperate cancer patients will go anywhere, they all ready go to Brazil to see shamans and the like. Please, someone answer my question: why is he in the FDA radius? Why???

    1. Maybe partly for the reasons you stated? Cancer doctors who practice outside the USA are called quacks, no matter how undeserved the label.

    1. The question is: Is your “Real Science” funded by the corporations that have it in their interest to protect the status quo and their profits, their system, their monopoly, their industry and share a conflict of interest, perpetrating campaigns to protect themselves while they profit off of the corpses of millions?
      The funny thing is, Nature will show you one way or the other, no matter what you say or think, that your “science” is unfounded and illogical. You do not own nature and you never will, you are not superior and because you poison what provides you life, you are indeed inferior.

      1. So that’s your illogical way of saying “I’m not going to read those links because I’m afraid they contradict my beliefs”.
        Science is the only way we have to know what works. What “corporations” do is beside the point. And if you live in a world where you think doctors are out to kill you, that’s a terrifying cartoon land you’ve created in your head. People are nicer than that.

        1. Don’t you have anything better to do? Apparently not.
          If you’re going to start trolling my posts, I’m going to just ignore you.
          Wait until you are the one being held down and forcefully injected, even though you said no.
          Science is a limited human perception of what they know, not all that is. You are clearly still blind to the world around you, but that isn’t my issue. Drink up the industry koolaid all you want, it isn’t my business how dumb you want to be.

          1. Hah! I should have guessed that you were also a pro-infection anti-vax nut.
            Your kind kills babies. I hope you’re OK with that.

          2. Like I said before, you can believe whatever you want and say whatever you want, but it won’t change the reality. If you want to get injections and not take alternate procedures, fine, but you have no right to tell anyone else to do so or not to do so.

          3. It’s uncomfortable having your cherished beliefs challenged. I get that. (I used to be religious.) I hope some day you’ll calm down and actually look at the evidence. Reality is a much nicer place than where you live. Not to mention safer.

          4. Come on dude, you know that you are wrong and you need to go ahead and just go collect your industry bribe paycheck and get over it.
            I am not defending this doctor, I have no idea if he is legit or not, in my opinion all the doctors are crooks.
            You need to understand that we may possibly be on the same side and bickering for no reason, I do not believe that division is a good thing but some people are hard to deal with the point that “words don’t work”.
            The industry has corrupted the regulatory agencies, the proof is there, if you don’t want to see it that isn’t my problem, that is yours. I am not going to sit here and pretend like this conversation is legitimate when clearly it is a sane person declared insane, trying to show the society accepted norm that it is wrong. Of course it will be refuted, whether it is true or not. If it challenges the status quo and the industries profits of course it will be challenged. Whistle-blowers who file proper complaints, are criminalized which is proof that there is corruption that is being hidden. Anyone who denies as much is either 1. living in denial unable to accept that their “oh so great nation” is as awful as it truly is or 2. protecting the industry because they or others benefit from its protection.
            My purpose is to provide the warning, your purpose is to change your ways or go extinct.

          5. That’s borderline incoherent.
            Did you notice that the article we’re commenting on is about Dr. B? That’s the point, not the corruption you see or imagine elsewhere. HE is corrupt. That’s the subject at hand.
            Slow down and read more carefully.

          6. Passion and righteous anger would naturally seem incoherent to a sociopath.
            Did you not read the article? Or most of the comments? The subject at hand is that the FDA has just declared that antineoplastons – the ONLY CURATIVE & NON-TOXIC CANCER THERAPY KNOWN TO MAN – is now VERBOTEN To All Americans. The subject in YOUR hand is another story and better done alone.

          7. Most of the comments here are utter horse pucky.
            “Antineoplastons” are bullshit. Burzynski made them up. They don’t work. They’re hokum. It is not only not the only “curative & non-toxic” cancer therapy known, it isn’t even a cancer therapy. It’s a ripoff.
            If the FDA bans this snake oil then the FDA is doing its job.
            But you may be right that Burzynski’s a sociopath.

          8. Libelous rubbish. Your comments are a crass example of the craven nature of the industry you defend, presumably for a paycheck.

          9. Delusional claptrap. Note that all you do is attack. I wonder why you haven’t produced any evidence to support this fraud you seem to support. Hmmm. Oh! Because there isn’t any.

          10. Behold the shameless hypocrisy and willful blindness of the troll, as immutable as the darkness that haunts its soul.

          11. It’s your kind who kill babies, via deadly vaccines. And vaccines significantly increase the risk of cancer. Anyone with common sense and the willingness to educate themselves further has no doubt about that, which explains the growing refusal of parents to offer up their babies for $acrifice.
            Robert Kennedy Jr. on the deadly corruption of the vaccine industry..

          12. Yup. Being a paid troll must be a dream job for a malignant narcissist, giving them endless narcissistic supply. Hence the expression ‘Don’t feed the trolls.’ :]

        2. Belief is the reason over 300,000 Americans a year die and many more are sickened at the hands of mainstream physicians. So alternative medicine has become a multi-billion $ industry, thanks to educated customers who pay out of pocket for true healing and avoid being poisoned and killed by insurance supported MDs.

          1. Doubling down on dumb, eh? There is no such thing as “alternative medicine”. Everything that calls itself that is just fraud and quackery. It wastes money by the billions and fails to heal anybody. That industry depends on UNEDUCATED people who don’t know what a sham and a fraud it is. It depends on confusing people into thinking that woo is science. It depends on them having a blind, religious belief in nonsense.
            Know what “alternative” medicine that actually works is called?
            If it’s science based it’s medicine. If it’s not, it’s a scam.
            And it’s still completely orthogonal to the point here, which is that Burzynski is a monster who tortures and rips off desperate people.

          2. What’s dumb is spewing your toxic nonsense to educated ANH readers. Anything for a buck, I suppose.. such is the nature of psychopathy.

          3. You’re completely delusional if you think anybody gets paid to write comments on web sites. Of course, if you think what Burzynski does is “medicine” you’re also delusional.

    2. You mean the real doctors who kill over 300,000 Americans every year with properly prescribed treatments? There’s even a word for it: ‘Iatrogenesis’. Here’s a better word: ‘Criminal’.

  28. Well moron, his group is only allowed to do his treatment under the umbrella of a “Medical Study”, and his clinical trial patients can only enter his program if the convential doctors say the patient is essentially waiting to die and there is not conventional big pharma treatment for that patient or the big pharma convention was tried and the big pharma method didn’t work. People that post such ignorant messages are either paid shills, or morons that believe they know everything when in reality their life is a complete failure because of their know-it-all mindset holds them back from conquering life’s hurdles.

    1. This is completely inaccurate. Physicians do not charge hundreds of thousands of dollars for participants in clinical trials. In fact, subjects who take part in clinical trials do not pay anything for the medications received since they are essentially acting as guinea pigs. Most of the time subjects actually get paid for being in clinical trials. In fact, this doctor claimed he was “studying” and refining the effects of his urine-based, sodium rich, antineoplaston drugs for 17 years to give the appearance of credibility in lieu of FDA approval, but in fact he never even requested FDA approval. AND he charged patients hundreds of thousands of dollars for the drugs, depleting many families of their life savings. He doesn’t even have board certification or training in oncology.
      And Burzynski’s drugs pose a risk of serious harm, including coma, swelling near the brain and death, according to the NCI and informed consent documents that patients sign before beginning treatment. While Burzynski has touted his treatments as an alternative to chemotherapy, a 1999 NCI study found that antineoplastons can cause many of the same side effects as conventional chemo: nausea, vomiting, headaches, muscle pain, confusion and seizures.
      In 1995, a federal grand jury indicted Burzynski on 75 felony charges, including criminal contempt, mail fraud and violations of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. As a condition of his bail, a judge ordered him to stop prescribing antineoplastons.
      Hypernatremia (high sodium) is one of antineoplastons’ most common side effects, known to doctors for decades. One of Burzynski’s own informed consent documents — the form that patients sign before they begin treatment — put the risk at 21%. The FDA stopped turning a blind eye to his dangerous therapies after the death of a child, Josia Cotto, who was under his care. Burzynski didn’t notice the child had lethal levels of sodium in his blood and continued medications. According to FDA inspections performed after Josia’s death, Burzynski had failed to report at least 18 hypernatremia cases.
      The Texas Medical Board has repeatedly tried and failed to put Burzynski out of business over the years. The board charged Burzynski in 2010 with violating state medical standards by prescribing legal cancer drugs in “random” and unapproved combinations, with no known benefits but clear harms.
      Jeffersonian, you obviously like to spout off online, calling people morons if they have a different opinion than yours. I worked in medical research for over a decade, and I have a much better idea of where to find credible medical and scientific information than someone who gets their information from Natural News. Natural News is highly inaccurate on some subjects, and readers would be doing themselves a favor if they read some peer- reviewed medical journals or scientific journals to check facts.

      1. Shameless shill swill from the National Cancer Institute, an industry whose Business As Usual is poisoning and killing people. Oh the irony!
        “In 1995, a federal grand jury indicted Burzynski on 75 felony charges..”
        Oops, you forgot -cough- to mention that Burzynski has been found innocent of every charge against him over the last 30+ years. So the FDA is now trying to put him out of business Just Because They Can. In conjunction with this, the internet has been blanketed with absurd libelous claims by sociopaths on the NCI payroll. Quack! Quack! squawk the sharks as they posture as our protectors.

        1. First off, Burzynski was not found “innocent” – there is no such thing as a finding of innocent in a court of law. The Burzynski Clinic is a medical clinic in Texas, United States founded in 1976 and offering unproven cancer treatment. It is best known for the controversial “antineoplaston therapy”, a chemotherapy using compounds it calls antineoplastons, devised by the clinic’s founder Stanislaw Burzynski in the 1970s.
          The clinic has been the focus of criticism primarily due to the way its antineoplaston therapy is promoted, the costs for cancer patients participating in “trials” of antineoplastons, problems with the way these trials are run, and legal cases brought as a result of the sale of the therapy without state board approval. Additionally, there is no accepted scientific evidence of clinical efficacy of antineoplaston combinations for various diseases.
          In 1998, three oncologists were enlisted by the weekly Washington newsletter The Cancer Letter to conduct independent reviews of Burzynski’s clinical trial research on antineoplastons. They concluded that the studies were poorly designed, not interpretable, and “so flawed that it cannot be determined whether it really works”. One of them characterized the research as “scientific nonsense”.[29] In addition to questioning Burzynski’s research methods, the oncologists found significant and possibly life-threatening toxicity in some patients treated with antineoplastons.[30]
          The Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center has stated: “Bottom Line: There is no clear evidence to support the anticancer effects of antineoplastons in humans.”
          Treatment can cost from $7,000 to $9,500 per month or more, depending on the type of treatment, number of consultations, and the need for surgery to implant a catheter for drug delivery. Available information suggests that health insurance plans often do not reimburse costs linked to this treatment.” As of March 2015, the Burzynski Clinic required patients to provide a deposit before treatment starts and their website informed patients that “Since we are classified as “out of network” we are unable to accept Medicare, Medicaid and any HMO insurance
          In 1994, a court found against Burzynski in a case of insurance fraud. According to the SMU Law Review, Burzynski was found to have defrauded an ERISA health insurance fund by billing it for unapproved “treatment” with antineoplastons, in violation of the terms of the health plan it covered.[47]
          In December 2010, the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners filed a multi-count complaint against Burzynski for failure to meet state medical standards.[48] This suit was eventually withdrawn in November 2012 after the judge allowed Burzynski to repudiate responsibility for the actions of staff at the clinic.[49] An appeal against the advertising restrictions on the grounds of free speech was denied on the basis that this was commercial speech promoting an unlawful activity.
          In January 2012, Lola Quinlan, an elderly, stage IV cancer patient, sued Burzynski for using false and misleading tactics to “swindle her out of $100,000”. She also sued his companies, The Burzynski Clinic, the Burzynski Research Institute and Southern Family Pharmacy, in Harris County Court. She sued for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, deceptive trade and conspiracy.
          In November 2011, a music writer and editor for the British newspaper The Observer sought help raising £200,000 to have his 4-year-old niece, who was diagnosed with glioma, treated at the Burzynski Clinic. Several bloggers reported other cases of patients who had spent similar amounts of money on the treatment, and had died, and challenged the validity of Burzynski’s treatments. Marc Stephens, identifying himself as a representative of the Burzynski Clinic, sent emails accusing them of libel and demanding that coverage of Burzynski be removed from their sites. One of the bloggers who received threatening e-mails from Stephens was Rhys Morgan, a 17-year-old sixth-formstudent from Cardiff, Wales, at the time, previously noted for exposing the Miracle Mineral Supplement.[59][60] Another was Andy Lewis, a skeptic and publisher of the Quackometer blog.
          Everyone has sued this guy, including the families of his patients who went through their life savings buying his treatments and then died anyway. But, there are always going to be gullible people looking for miracles and ready to believe any ridiculous conspiracy theory that conflicts with their beliefs.

  29. He should launch his cure/therapy outside of the USA. He doesn’t need approval from the FDA outside this country. I don’t get it! why is his clinic in Texas and not in a country that doesn’t have FDA type of rules??? why? why? why?????

    1. I think there are two main reasons: Doctors who treat cancer outside the U.S. are labeled as quacks by the establishment media, scaring potential patients off in droves; And Dr. Burzynski’s been successful against every bogus legal assault by the FDA for over 35 years, thanks in part to his cured patients rallying for him in court. So why would he leave?
      But now the FDA doesn’t even pretend to have a reason to shut him down, so maybe he will finally be forced to practice elsewhere. But how many can afford both the treatment and travel to another country, assuming they’re lucky enough to learn of its existence?

  30. You ignore the fact that the food is toxic to health, the doctors peddle pills just to increase their own profits and support from the industry; That society makes people sick intentionally.
    It has nothing to do with whatever tumor she had, because the tumor she had was only a result of the TOXIC SOCIETY which should be your FOCUS.

  31. The troll was once human and he knows his prey. So know him as well and he may go away. This is not a poem, snap out of it.
    To engage a troll is pointless. He’s trained to repeat phrases that are rooted in one singular purpose: the defense of evil deeds.
    The troll is aware of only himself. There is no concept of fairness and no awareness of you/me/our true existence. We are only words on a screen to be mocked and ridiculed. This is what the troll lives for. For even the fallen enjoy a good laugh.
    The troll mirrors reasonable human behavior and may initially appear clever, knowledgeable, even humorous. BEWARE. Do not attempt to debate a troll, for he does not care what you know or what you think. So you will only get frustrated, your blood pressure will rise and you will take up smoking.
    The smarter trolls expand on their phrases and may appear to be thoughtful; they are not. They are insane. Remember that. You will know the troll by his odor, for the food of the troll is bullsh*t.
    excerpted from: SPOCK & TROLL: The Logical Slaying of Evil

  32. It’s all about the money,they are hand in glove with big pharma and the medical establishment.There needs to be a way to stop them.There are probably so many natural medical cures for cancer and other deadly diseases out there,many we will never hear about.

        1. Burzynski paints himself as a lone maverick doctor, struggling against the vested interests and the great wealth of ”Big Pharma,” the FDA, and many others. He also claims to have found a safe and effective form of cancer treatment. He also claims that the medical authorities and ”Cancer Industry” do not want you to have this and will try anything to shut him down, after all they have their millions to protect. In order to struggle on with his pioneering work, he even asks you to donate via his website.
          Yet he is not financially struggling. Burzynski lives in a 15 thousand square foot, $6 million dollar residence with 15 bathrooms, saunas and swimming pools. In 10 acre’s of ground. Burzynski has done very well for himself. The key here is the morals and motives of an individual. He is in it for the money. Not only this he has been directly accused of overcharging and financially exploiting the desperation of families and patient’s hit with cancer. Burzynski charges his patients to take part in his own clinical ‘trials’ He can only treat patients with this drugs from within a ‘trial’. However unlike participants in other real medical trials, Burzynski charges them a huge amount of money, in some cases hundreds of thousands. Thus, if Burzynksi’s treatments are found to work, then the financial risk of that investigation is being taken by his patients, people with cancer. If the trials are not positive, then Burzynski will still have gained financially and his patients will have lost both their lives and their money. He is not taking any risk at all in these trials. When people sign up to trials, they expect their participation to benefit themselves and humanity, and this can only be done by publication of results. Thus, a failure to publish is a moral outrage. This ‘man’ has never published any results and still charges lots of money for an untested and ineffective ‘treatment’
          Why is Burzynski not doing everything in his power to ensure that doctor’s world wide are using his approach?. Why is he not getting help from other doctors and laboratories to gain the benefits of scale in producing his treatments?. Why is he keeping his data, results and methods all to himself?.
          It is outrageous that this ‘man’ is getting away with depriving people of both their lives and money, and making a very nice living from it. He is also playing with desperate, and sometimes gullible people’s lives. His arguments are absolutely idiotic too. Cure cancer? There is no single ”cure” for cancer because there are 100’s of different types of the disease

          1. Who doesn’t work for money? And what do you have to say about rich oncologists? They get a piece of the chemo pie, which fails 97% of the time, according to a recent study – and it poisons patients as it fails.
            So you condemn a doctor for buying a mansion from his profits, but say nothing about oncologists poisoning patients for profit. No surprise, since paid debunkers care not for facts and logic.
            And Dr. Burzynski has absolutely cured many patients, even some who were given up on by oncologists. And those who aren’t cured are NOT poisoned by antineoplastons.

          2. Experiment treatments should be free, as you are using a person to conduct trials. Experiment treatments by pharma are free. Dr Burzynski should get investment and then use this to conduct free clinical trials or use the money he has gained over the years to do them. Chemo doesn’t have a failure rate of 97%. In the UK 50% of all people diagnosed with cancer will live for 10 years or more, in certain countries in Europe it’s better (55-60%), so chemo does work.
            His profits come from untested and unproven drugs, with the dying having to pay for them. Thats what I am condemning. Medical oncologists get paid a flat rate for their work, they get paid if treatment is given or not.
            Where is his published data which proves he has cured many patients?. Why won’t he publish his clinical trial result?.

  33. BTW.. For anyone paying attention, “voice in the wilderness is a troll” and probably robotic. As to the subject at hand, the FDA has mistaken itself for God in its apparently psychopathic determination to control and kill the population. There are dozens of effective cancer treatments besides antineoplastins and they are all suppressed or declared “illegal” by… by whom exactly? It is true Monsanto controls the USDA, the FDA and the EPA but if you go all the way at the very top of the medical industry food chain you will find David Rockefeller; the most committed eugenicist and depopulationist in the world. He, Monsanto and Bill Gates Jr. are joined at the hip. However, as long as the sheeple fail to educate and defend themselves I feel sadly certain the slaughter will continue.

    1. Right on, Alice! Eugenics never died, it just went underground after the nazis made a spectacle of it. Now it’s back with a vengeance and ‘Overpopulation’ is their buzzword. Viewed in this light, all the reckless actions of gov & industry make perfect, diabolical sense.

  34. Readers may or may not be aware of the history of antineoplaston therapy. It is a rather seedy tale. Antineoplastons have long been promoted by the Burzynski Clinic to desperate patients, who have been charged life-changing sums of money for an unproven chemo treatment. 61 trials have been registered on the clinicaltrials website, and only one has ever been completed. However the results have never been published to my knowledge. Most of the trials he has set-up have either been withdrawn, terminated or have an unknown status for more than two years. This should tell you everything

    1. A damning assumption with a hollow center, wrapped in bullsh*t.. Who registered the antineoplaston trials on the NIH site you posted? I saw no names.. and I smell yet another tiresome troll.

      1. The clinicaltrials site is maintained by US NIH, and has many trials globally on it. Dr Burzynski registered all the trials (legally you have to) and out of 61 has only completed one, and is yet to publish the results. If you click on ‘Antineoplaston Therapy in Treating Patients With Stage IV Melanoma’ and go to the bottom you will find the sponsors and Collaborators are the Burzynski Research Institute. Also the Investigators Study Chair: is Stanislaw R. Burzynski, MD, PhD from Burzynski Research Institute

    1. Are you referring to the movie?
      And where’s the evidence of chemo and radiation’s effectiveness?

      1. I will add some links. They will be moderated, so make take some time to be put up

  35. So Burzynski is using anecdotes to sell this chemo, again!. There are real clinical trails that could help and that are free too

    1. Dr. Burzynski uses antineoplastons, not chemo. He did agree to do a clinical trial with, I believe, NIH, treating some patients with both. So maybe it’s ‘free’ only when you agree to certain terms? But it seems obvious to me that a clinical trial using just antineoplastons would make sense, while adding chemo clouds the results. And imo, anecdotal evidence is the most compelling, because individual patients have direct experience with no hidden agenda.

      1. Antineoplastons are a form of chemo, chemotherapy is a form of cancer treatment that uses chemical substances to treat cancer. All clinical trials should be free as a patient is being used to test experimental treatments, however his aren’t. He did work with the NIH but there was a falling out between the two. Adding chemo doesn’t cloud the results as you are using proven drugs (chemo) and then adding the experimental ones (antineoplastons) to see if you get better results. Withholding treatments that have been proven is highly unethical. There are lot’s of flaws with anecdotal evidence. He should conduct proper clinical trials and publish all the results

          1. That’s not a response to my comment. A troll is a person who sows discord by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages. Based on your comment it seems you are trying to either upset me, or trying to start an argument. It’s also off-topic too

          2. The purpose of the troll is to cloud the issue, like your cloudy and deceitful medspeak posturing. Don’t you have a plane to catch? Cheerio!

          3. No. A troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

  36. Look at Bursynski’s documentation. It’s PUBLICLY available. What’s the chance that the Mayo clinic would let him get away with their assessment that the situation is hopeless? Are you thinking?

    1. Publicly available bullshit is still bullshit. And the Mayo Clinic isn’t in charge of anybody but the Mayo Clinic, so I have no idea what you’re talking about there.
      Burzynski’s snake oil doesn’t help anybody. It hurts people. He rips them off. Are you thinking?

      1. The only BS involved here is emanating from somebody who is hiding his own name and probably truly does belong in the wilderness.

        1. That’s a pretty sad excuse for an ad hominem response. But, since there is no evidence to support Burzynski, illogical retorts are all you have available.

          1. What’s sad is that you’ve denied evidence because you evidently don’t know science from a hole in the ground. Best that you remain hidden behind your wilderness voice.

          2. Show me some evidence. Actual, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence.
            Good luck with that.

          3. Why bother ? You cannot even accept the fact that Bursynski only works on cases that have been deemed hopeless by credible medical institutions. That’s public, but you think “public is b.s.” You’ve apparently already demonstrated that you can’t recognize evidence if it conflicts in any way with your mindset. That’s not an unusual affliction, unfortunately.

          4. Why bother? Because, unlike you, I will change my mind when presented with solid evidence and a rational argument.
            You’ve lied about what I said. Burzynski’s snake oil is bogus no matter how publicly the Mayo Clinic says something. The fact that he preys on the most desperate is part of what makes him such a monster. If someone survives his treatment it’s not because of his treatment. They end up in more pain and a lot poorer, usually dying sooner. That’s hideous. How can you support torturing people and charging them for the privilege?
            “Big Pharma” and “Big Medicine” are completely irrelevant to the discussion, but indicate that you think ideologically instead of rationally. Quite independent of what any other human or organization on the planet is doing, Burzynski is charging people for dangerous crap that can’t help them. He sells false hope to desperate people. It doesn’t get a lot worse than that.
            If you can provide actual evidence that his treatments help, and not just insult people or spout wild-eyed conspiracy theories, please do so. If you can’t, try remaining silent. You won’t look as stupid that way.

          5. You’re obviously irrational and don’t even recognize that your mindset is totally “ideological”.
            You may dislike that Burzynski charges for what he does -that’s irrelevant. His approach offers a considerable improvement over current cancer treatment.
            I’m not part of the medical organization whereas your email website indicates otherwise for you. I’d think you would be obligated to look at Burzynski’s claims to see if they hold up. But you and probably your organization are no different than religious zealots. Anything that threatens your SOP must be attacked. (By the way big pharma and big medicine get paid quite well for what they’re doing too – but right now Burzynski has more to offer to phase 4 cancer patients than ANYTHING offered by conventional medicine.) And conventional medicine has spent the last couple of decades trying to put Burzynski in jail and has succeeded in not permitting most cancer patients to opt for his treatment.)

          6. Charging for treatment is commerce. Charging for snake oil is fraud. There’s a difference.
            I believe psychologists would characterize what you just wrote as “projection”. Now, if I were part of a medical organization it would make no difference at all to the fact that you have zero evidence to support your position. But the fact that you fantasize that I *am* part of a medical organization, or that I even have a web site, shows that you are either dishonest or delusional.
            Burzynski belongs in jail, and you’re supporting someone who victimizes, tortures, and rips off cancer patients. Congratulations.
            I note that you still have to produce a single shred of evidence. You seem to think this is a battle of *who* is right. It’s not. This is about *what* is right. It’s about science and morality, not about your cherished and irrational beliefs.

          7. It’s pretty clear to me which group is pushing the “snake oil”. You’ve made the claim, so now prove it, or you might be liable !
            I can only refer you to the publicly available documents I’ve read, but you apparently believe that only your personal beliefs are valid. Not an iota of rationality there.

          8. WTF? It’s not a “group” pushing snake oil, it’s Burzynski. I’ve linked multiple times here to many qualified scientific articles outlining exactly what he’s doing wrong. Sorry to make you use the search function on your browser. You’ll figure it out.
            But I’m not the one making the claim that needs evidence. He is making the claim that his piss juice cures cancer. Either post links to actual evidence baking up that claim, or remain quiet.
            Note that I have asked for evidence over and over and over and over, and not one person has even tried. That’s because there isn’t any.

          9. You seem surprised, to learn that you may be part of the group pushing “snake oil”, whether it be medicine, or bogus opinions, it’s all the same.
            You have made the claim that Bursynski Clinic is a fraud, and you’re asking ME to provide evidence to the contrary. Your head is parked up your posterior annex.

          10. Do you ever read your answers aloud to hear how dumb they sound?
            Medicine is the opposite of snake oil. Medicine is what works. Snake oil is what doesn’t work. Yeesh.
            I *did* provide evidence that Burzynski is a fraud. Lots of it. You haven’t provided a shred of evidence that what he’s doing is valid. All you have is snark and bad reading skills.
            Find the links I posted. Read all the articles there. Follow the links within them. Plenty of evidence. From actual scientists and oncologists.
            If you post ONE MORE reply without any evidence in it, anybody reading this exchange who has two synapses to rub together will know you’re talking out of your sphincter.

          11. You did provide evidence? Surely you’re joking. What you provided is nothing more than some inane comments. Why would I follow your links anywhere? You’ve established what you are, clearly.

          12. You’re hilarious. That’s the typed equivalent of jamming your fingers in your ears and chanting “I can’t hear you!” I provided evidence via links. It’s this whole internet thing, and I know it’s complicated, but you should try.
            You cannot simultaneously say, “You have provided no evidence” and “I refuse to read your evidence” and expect anybody to take you remotely seriously. Kindergarteners know better than that.
            You’re still trying to make this about me. It isn’t. It isn’t about you, either.
            And with help from rubes like you, this monster stays free and continues preying on the desperate.

          13. Despicable! No need for me to respond. Merely look in a mirror while you’re chanting that b.s.

          14. Witness all: Denis Ables has just admitted publicly that he has no evidence at all to back up his insane assertions.

          15. This poor soul, deservedly out in the wilderness, is asking me, rather than the Burzynski Clinic, for evidence. In the meantime, although he has called that clinic a fraud, he does not recognize that he is obligated to provide evidence, and cannot put it in words, but instead attempts to have readers chase after bogus links.
            Whatsmore, he has no answer for the fact that Burzynski, in its public data shows copies of patient’s previous assessments by credible institutions – patents now still living. The fact that he refuses to recognize that fact should be sufficient for any reader with an IQ > potted plant.

          16. I’ve provided evidence. Multiple times. You have provided zero. I have already addressed the fact that the few who have survived Burzynski’s piss torture have not done so because of his ministrations. You’re either irredeemably dense or, more likely, so ideologically driven that you can’t think. I am completely aware of Burzynski’s public “data”. Had you actually read the links I posted – multiple times – you’d know that.
            You’re supporting a fraud. Deal with it. Calling me stupid doesn’t change a single fact. Every time you post without a link to any evidence you’re admitting that you have none.

          17. You’ve admitted that juries invariably find Bursynski innocent, so apparently you think all juries and judges are stupid too.

          18. Criminals sometimes skate on technicalities. Medicine, science, and reality aren’t decided in courts. Which you’d also know if you’d actually read what I wrote and were capable of understanding plain English.
            And you just admitted -again- that you have zero evidence.

          19. What you call “zero evidence” is evidence to anyone in our normal gene pool.

          20. You just admitted, again, that you don’t have any evidence. Slow learner, or glutton for punishment?

          21. Let’s review the situation. Bursynski only gets to treat those patients who have been written off by the regular cancer clinics. Those patients, preferring to live, opt to pay to get that chance, and some of them do.
            But, like any aspiring bureaucrat you wish to take that liberty away from those patients? Why, exactly?

          22. How about we review the actual situation? Patients who are dying of cancer are charged exorbitant prices for a treatment that doesn’t help, shortens their lives, and increases their pain.
            I don’t want to take away the liberty of patients. I want to jail the monster who is torturing them and ripping them off.
            What you’re doing is like arguing that arresting a con man who preys on old people is taking away the liberty of old people to have their money stolen.

          23. The key is “patients who are dying”. They aren’t happy about that, and some of them have obviously beaten that prediction because of Burzynski. You’d probably try to jump the line if you were in that state, so why not let others decide for themsleves?
            The “torture” is chemo and radiaton. Both processes also seem to qualify as torture and a rip off. What I’ve seen shows Burzynski as being pretty successful compared to typical cancer clinics. Calling him a “con-man” reminds me of Sloan Kettering’s bogus tests and rejection of laetrile. THEY appear to have been the “con” persons.

          24. Thanks for the good laugh. I’m calling a Poe on this one. Well played, sir.

          25. It’s good to have an opportunity to expose folks like you to the general readers

          26. And…don’t forget the phony study that was done to discredit the vitamin C cure.

          27. YOu don’t seem to understand that Bursynski’s patients have all been written off by the regular cancer treatment clinics. They’ve evidently opted to pay and be “tortured” in order to have a chance to live longer., but the existing medical bureaucracy would rather have them die than be embarrassed by their incompetence.

          28. Are you dense or dishonest? Maybe both. I’ve addressed that irrelevant point multiple times. The desperation of his victims is not relevant to his incompetence. All you’ve done is pointed out how desperate his victims are. It makes him all the more despicable.
            How did you figure out how to use a computer when you clearly can’t read?

          29. So now you’re responding to your own posts? Man, are you confused.
            And you just admitted again that you have no evidence.

          30. Where are you getting your information? You have obviously never met Burzynski’s patients or you couldn’t make the statements you’ve just made. The real snake oil is all is many of those crazy Pharma drugs. Haven’t you watched the commercials with their side effects and all the lawyer lawsuits advocating for pharma’s victims?

          31. If you think regular cancer therapy is doing any better, look up some of the cancer victims death certificates and see what they really died from. and while you are at it, show us where Mayo treatments are any better than Burzynski.

          32. I’ve seen you spouting quack theories and remedies for cancer all over this comment thread. It’s not surprising that you show no evidence of having understood a thing I’ve said.

        1. I did, and you haven’t stopped being a broken record long enough to read it.
          Learn how and when to use ellipses, dimwit.

  37. Company A produces a very profitable treatment for cancer. It keeps the person alive but doesn’t cure them.
    Company B cures the same type of cancer that company A can only treat. They release it and can capture 100% of that market. Who would want to be treated for life, over a cure?. Also they would pay a lot of money for it too. So company B would make more than enough profit.
    A cure would be huge. Lets say the FDA blocks company B’s drug. Well they could go to another country, go through that government’s process, and release it there. The demand in the US would be huge, and the FDA would have to give in to it. Also people could still get it elsewhere

    1. Your point has a glaring omission: The All-Important Media[tor], which determines what gets through and what does NOT. If a tree falls in the woods and the media doesn’t report it, does it make a sound? Not to most ears.
      I know this from personal experience, too. Of the hundreds of people I’ve told about Dr. Burznyski over the years, not one of them had already heard of him. Not One. And without exception, those who know the ‘news media’ is pure propaganda were anxious to learn more and angered by the censoring of this life-saving treatment, especially those who helplessly watched as a loved one was tortured to death by chemo. And without exception, those who don’t were dubious: ‘But if it really works, surely everyone would know about it!’ Exactly the point you’re naively? trying to make.
      Imagine a world where the news media actually did the job it pretends to do.. what a wonderful world that would be!

      1. The media report’s on medical treatments are mostly woeful, and can be highly inaccurate. However should it matter if people don’t know about Dr Burznyski?. If so, why?. How many know of Northwest Bio, yet their cancer vaccine (DCVax-L) for GBM (a type of primary and highly aggressive brain cancer) is in a global Phase III trial with results out next year. It has shown (based on Phase I & II trial data) median survival time of 36.4 months vs 14.6 months (only a few percent live longer) in historical controls and with 33% of patients reaching 4-year survival, and 27% reaching or exceeding 6-year survival. The longest surviving patients have now exceeded 10 years. They also have DCVax-Direct product which offers a potential new treatment option for the wide range of clinical situations in which patient’s tumors are considered ”inoperable” because the patient has multiple tumors, or their tumor cannot be completely removed, or the surgery would cause undue damage to the patient and impair their quality of life. From a Phase I trial 86% of patients treated with the preferred method are still alive. Also their chief technical officer is Dr Marnix L. Bosch PhD who worked at the Dutch National Institutes of Health (RIVM) as head of the Department of Molecular Biology, as well as in academia as a professor of Pathobiology.
        All of their data from the studies has been published and peer-reviewed, unlike any of Dr Burzynski’s. The same can be said of other pharma and biotech companies too. Once a treatment is proven by Phase I-III trials it will be used, but not before then. His (Dr Burzynski’s) treatments are yet to be proven safe let alone effective in treating just one type of cancer. So I fail to see how they are ”life-saving”?. Nobody is saying chemo is an easy treatment to go through but it has been proven to work, and saves many lives (I’ve added links awaiting moderation to show this). Pharma, governments, and charities are working on better treatments in those that standard of care doesn’t work for. Many are in trials as we speak. See ‘Adoptive Cell Therapy for the Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Melanoma’ Pubmed PMC3459355 and ‘CD8+ enriched ”young” tumor infiltrating lymphocytes can mediate regression of metastatic melanoma’ Pubmed PMC2978753

        1. Final comment to bowler hat troll: medspeak posturing is surely impressive and effectively misleading to low-info types, but not to ANH readers.
          My point on gov/corporate media propaganda undermining citizens’ free will and well-being, including the suppression of Dr. Burzynski’s success with curing cancer was, as usual, entirely side-stepped with gobbledygook.

          1. If Burzynski had any success he would be conducting trials and publishing the results, he never has. He charges dying cancer patients huge sums of money for untested, unproven and unapproved drugs. Northwest Bio is releasing data and have done for years. If the vaccine works for GBM you should hear about it on the news as it will be a true scientific and proven breakthrough

        2. Ummm, like what side effects… like the death rate using it…. like I said, only an oncologist would know the above. Hi, Texas oncologist! Like for the numerous times you guys try to take away the Big B’s license, here you are trying to nail the coffin shut. Rats, I just took your hammer. I only know of the kids that ummm, like chemo didn’t work, and some lived with B’s treatment. . Like you do care about kids, oh, yeah, he threatens you business, doesn’t he?

  38. Where are all the patients that have been healed through this experimental treatment? I’d love to hear from them if they are indeed out there. Surely after all this time there are hundreds of patients healed? Can anyone direct me to how or where to find them?

    1. Here’s a good start, Burzynski: The Movie, made in 2011, free on youtube. Part 2 was released last year and is available for purchase.
      And the book The Burzynski Breakthrough has the detailed info you’re inquiring about:
      And here’s an excellent expose on the cancer industry, where I first read of Dr. Burzynski: The Politics of Cancer, by Samuel Epstein MD 1982.. (the # of mostly 5 star reviews has strangely dropped significantly since i last visited the page):
      And here’s Dr. Epstein’s follow up, The Politics of Cancer Revisited 1998
      It appears that thanks in large part to the two documentaries, word is now spreading fast, which may be why the FDA is now stopping Dr. Burzynski from treating any new patients, simply because They Say So.
      I suspect awareness of gov/industry corruption is growing rapidly, which may be why internet content will soon be regulated for the first time, beginning in 2016. ‘Net Neutrality’ rules are hundreds of pages long, giving the FCC unprecedented censoring power over the Net.

      1. The movie was paid for by Dr Burzynski. 61 trials have been registered on the clinicaltrials website, and only one has ever been completed. However the results have never been published to my knowledge. That should say it all

        1. Most, if not all medical research is funded by the pharmaceutical Industry, so according to your logic all their studies are suspect.
          And I assume you’re implying antineoplastons don’t work based on the alleged one completed clinical trial vs 61 registered? So please post the links to this claimed evidence? Thanks.

          1. A huge number of drugs sponsored by pharma companies fail in Phase I, II or III trials. Also after a trial all data is published and should be submitted to a peer-review journal with a good impact factor. If you go to clinicaltrials[DOT]gov and search: antineoplastons you will find 61 results. Only one trial has been completed and this was entitled ‘Antineoplaston Therapy in Treating Patients With Stage IV Melanoma’ but the results have never been published. All the other 60 trials have an unknown, withdrawn or terminated status. So where is any data his drugs work?

          2. The NIH is part of the same system of conspiratorial suppression. So posting any success with antineoplastons would profoundly undermine the cancer industry.

          3. How is the NIH part of the same system of suppression?. He has registered the trials and has only completed one. Why won’t he conduct more?. Why won’t he publish the results of his one only complete trial?. How would posting the success of antineoplastons undermine standard of care?. We need to remember that there are 100 to over 200 different types of cancer (the actual number depends on how some researchers subdivide some types) in humans. Each of these different cancers have different genetics, different prognoses, different causes, and different treatments. In other words, it is not one singular disease with one unified course of treatment. Every cancer is so different with such different physiology, there is just never going to be a magic treatment. Also all the old chemo drugs given are long off patent

          4. Regarding the NIH, I’m not going to point out the obvious to an obvious troll. Regarding your implied accusation that Dr. Burzynski is hiding something, I expect there’s an explanation that has nothing to do with what you imply, as is always the case with trolls. It’s simply a suitable weapon for your bowler hat persona, and you’ll use it until someone exposes your ruse. But a gov site does not reveal its secrets, and I’ve already wasted enough time on your nonsense.

          5. You have made a claim about the NIH, so please back it up?. Unless you are trying to start an argument which is what a troll does. You haven’t done anything to back your claims up. I’ve even told you how to search Burzynski’s publications on Pubmed. I’ve also shown you out of 61 trials registered only one has ever been completed and the results have never been published. Neither you or he are very convincing

          6. You can do a search on Pubmed for Burzynski SR[Author] in the box and find his publications too

          7. I see no indication of that. But if it’s so, it’s a gov site, Dr. Burzynski’s stated enemy, which decides what gets posted. And your using it as a weapon against Dr. Burzynski, is further reason for suspicion.

          8. If you click on one of the trials and go down to the bottom you can see who is the investigator and who is the sponsor. Why would a government website be an enemy of him?. The site doesn’t decide what gets posted or not. Legally all trials have to be registered and they will be added to the site. This still doesn’t change the fact only one trial has been completed by him over many decades and he is yet to publish the results. So why won’t he publish the data?. Why won’t he run other trials?. These are legitimate questions that need a response from him

    2. CJ, ‘the other Burzynski Patient Group is a debunker site. I held my nose and dug in when Bob Blaskeiwicz posted the link and, as I expected, it’s a total sham. I posted what I learned in response to Bob B., somewhere below..

  39. The personal insult is a popular troll tactic, guaranteed to elicit a defensive response from the unwary – pure nectar to the pathological troll.
    And though it’s compelling to correct its seemingly endless falsities for the sake of other readers [never for the toxic troll, for which truth is forever the enemy], ANH readers already know the sad truth, so I’ll go smell the Bach flowers instead..

  40. ANH-USA provides a comment forum for our readers to share their constructive thoughts and criticisms about our newsletter articles and engage in civil debate with other readers. All comments are pre-moderated regardless of author. We never censor comments based on political or ideological point of view. We only remove those comments that are abusive, off-topic, use foul language, include personal attacks, or are otherwise discourteous and uncivil. Please do not post comments in ALL CAPS; on the internet this is considered “shouting.”

  41. Please can you prove that oncologists in the US get a percentage of the profit from chemo?. Also as I’ve stated before all Dr. Burzynski’s treatments are experimental and are yet to be proven safe or effective. So he shouldn’t be charging patients for any of them. I will add some links to deal with the study from Australia that will be moderated.
    Also ask yourself why major pharma companies haven’t made deals with him?. Why didn’t they buy him or his patents out?. Why didn’t they make copies of his drugs?.
    Chemo does suppress the immune system, but then so does cancer. One of the ten hallmarks is that cancer is invisible to the immune system. Even if the immune system recognizes the cancer then it will put up defenses to stop the immune attack like up-regulating expression of PDL1 which stop’s T-cells attacking it. Also up-regulating expression of CD47 which will stop macrophages as well. This is know as immunoediting. There are a number of anti-pdl1/pd1 drugs on the market, and a number of anti-cd47 drug trials have just started with more to follow soon. Sadly some cancer’s can return months or years down the line, but this all depends on what type of cancer
    Also cancer survival is measured in 1, 5 , and 10 year in the UK. I added a link to that in reply to one of your comments
    All drugs have to go through Phase I, II and then III studies. Double blind and placebo controlled are the ‘gold standard’. Double blind means neither the doctor or patient knows what treatment is being used and placebo controlled means standard of care is given with either a placebo or the experimental treatment. Many small companies can afford these, the investment comes from either sold shares in a company or privately. Northwest Bio are running a global Phase III in GBM as we speak with results out next year. So many can afford to run then, not just the major companies
    As I’ve said in a Phase III treatment aren’t withheld if there is one. Its standard of care + placebo v standard of care + experimental drug. These is a far test to see if the drug is better or not
    Dr. Burzynski doesn’t have any proof or he would be releasing the trial data from his only one completed study. He would also being running more studies too. He has never release any evidence, nor gotten into peer-reviewed journals.
    He hasn’t cured patients of cancer. He sells unproven and untested drugs on the back of anecdotal evidence and offers false and misleading hope to dying cancer patients. Most don’t survive, and even if they do I have yet to find good proof it was thanks to his treatments.

  42. Here is the original and here is the full PDF Looking at the link, the conclusion of this study was: “CONCLUSION: As the 5-year relative survival rate for cancer in Australia is now over 60%, it is clear that cytotoxic chemotherapy only makes a minor contribution to cancer survival. To justify the continued funding and availability of drugs used in cytotoxic chemotherapy, a rigorous evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and impact on quality of life is urgently required.”
    There are many therapies to treat cancer: surgery, radiotherapy, hormonal therapy, immune therapy and chemotherapy. The researchers wanted to know to what extent chemotherapy contributed to five-year-survival of cancer patients.
    The fact is that from a patient’s perspective they are not really interested in how much chemotherapy contributes to the cure or survival of all patients, what they are interested in is how much it will contribute to their particular disease and the stage of it. I don’t think this paper helps from a patient’s perspective. Similarly from a public funding, or public policy point of view, lumping everything together is not a terribly helpful way either
    They also looked at only 22 types of cancer, and there are 100-200. They also only looked at data from 154,971 patients. In 3,306 of these, 5-year survival could be attributed solely to chemotherapy. So thats how they came up with the 2.3% survival in Australia and 2.1% in the USA. Nowhere in the study does it say that only 3,306 patients survived their chemotherapy and that consequently 151,665 patients died because of chemotherapy. The study was carried out in 2004, using data from 1998.
    The types of cancer they looked at were: Head and neck, Oesophagus, Stomach, Colon, Rectum, Pancreas, Lung, Soft tissue sarcoma, Melanoma, Breast, Uterus, Cervix, Ovary, Prostate, Testis, Bladder, Kidney, Brain, Unknown primary, Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Hodgkin’s disease and Multiple myeloma. I know of a number that have a poor prognosis and even in the primary types that have a good prognosis like breast cancer (10 year survival of 75%) then there are many types, like Triple negative, Spindle cell and some others. The poor types are: Unknown primary, Brain, Ovarian Lung Stomach and Oesophageal and a few others aren’t that great. So, almost half are in my view ‘bad’. In other words by them just including these types they are trying to paint a certain type of picture
    The researchers looked at a lot of cancers, but they didn’t look at all of them. They did not differentiate between cancers for which chemotherapy is the primary treatment and cancers for which chemotherapy is only given as an adjuvant (along side). This is the case in most solid cancers, for which surgery is the primary and by far the most effective treatment. They did not include cancers for which chemotherapy is very effective, such as leukemia. They did not include children’s cancers, some of which are highly responsive to treatment, e.g. Wilms, with about 90% of patients surviving at least five years. They did not differentiate between early stage cancers (tumor under 1cm, no mets in lymph nodes, or elsewhere), for which chemotherapy often is not even indicated, and late stage, incurable cancers which had already metastasized at the time of diagnosis, some even quite extensively. They did not look at the effect of chemotherapy on life extension (median survival), which in my opinion they should have, since they included already incurable cancers in their study.
    Suppose the effect of chemotherapy on 5-year survival in leukemia is 60% and the effect of chemotherapy on 5-year survival of very early stage breast cancer is 0% (because: not indicated, therefore not administered). The average effect of chemotherapy on both cancers combined is 30% (60+0 : 2 = 30). But what does this overall average tell the individual patient regarding their prognosis? Well, nothing actually.
    In a number of situations, depending on stage, grade and type of cancer, women with breast cancer are advised to take adjuvant chemotherapy, in order to destroy any (clinically invisible) micro-metastases in their blood. This kind of chemo improves the 10-year survival prognosis with an average 5-7%. The percentage is based on all women receiving adjavant chemo. If you don’t have micrometastases, the chemo will do nothing for your prognosis. However, for the women who do have them, the chemo may enhance their personal prognosis much more, sometimes as high as 20%.
    The data from the study are from 1998. We are now in 2015 and progress has been made in those years. There is better medication to diminish side effects of chemotherapy. There is new, sophisticated technology to assess which breast cancers are prone to metastasize and which are not, resulting in less women having to undergo chemotherapy. Scientists are working hard on similar tests for other cancers. There are over 80 different kinds of chemotherapy. Some are sheer hell. Nevertheless: chemotherapy still is the ultimate cancer scare factor and the sooner we can do without it, the better. But it is not true that only 2-3% survive chemotherapy. It is not true that the average benefit of chemotherapy to 5-year survival is as low as 2%. It is also not true that all chemotherapy is by definition completely and totally unbearable. If we really want to get anywhere at all, then honesty about the facts, not manipulation, self-aggrandizing and scare mongering, should be the basis for discussion and decision making.

    1. In 1998, three oncologists were enlisted by the weekly Washington newsletter The Cancer Letter to conduct independent reviews of Burzynski’s clinical trial research on antineoplastons. They concluded that the studies were poorly designed, not interpretable, and “so flawed that it cannot be determined whether it really works”. One of them characterized the research as “scientific nonsense”

      1. So Moe, Larry & Curly took a vacation from poisoning patients to investigate the competition? Lucky patients.
        I bet you get paid by the word, not the content, you lucky Devil!

        1. No, the oncologists didn’t take a vacation to check the ‘competition’. They were enlisted to conduct independent reviews of him, this methods, and his drugs. The did state that they couldn’t determine if they worked or not. Also they don’t poison anyone, as the drugs are tested in clinical trials and have to be proven to work. Nobody is saying the chemo drugs are a walk in the park, but they do work. However the sooner we can do without them the better
          If Burzynski had ‘played by the rules’ and methodically taken ANPs through the clinical trial process, he (and we) would have known decades ago whether ANPs have significant anticancer activity in humans. In 2015, we still don’t know for sure (100%), although what we do know strongly suggests that ANPs have little or no anticancer activity. As I’ve asked before why won’t he publish the only clinical trial he as ever completed?. Why won’t he conduct more and then publish them too?. One of the drugs he uses, phenylacetic acid, know as AS-2.1, had been studied as a potential anticancer agent years before Burzynski discovered it[1] and, although it has been studied intermittently for fifty years, it has shown little promise against brain tumors[2]. Even A10 and AS2-1 based on sodium phenylbutyrate has been looked into as well[3]. It seems Burzynski his is own worst enemy.
          [1] Sandler, M., and H.G. Close 1959. Biochemical effect of phenylacetic acid in a patient with 5-hydroxytryptophan-secreting carcinoid tumor. Lancet 2 (7098): 316–18
          [2] Chang, S.M., et al. 1999. Phase II study of phenylacetate in patients with recurrent malignant glioma: A North American Brain Tumor Consortium report. Journal of Clinical Oncology 17(3): 984–90
          [3] Pubmed PMC1871887 and 11489804, 11489809, 11948101, 16357841, 16778214, 17053987 and 19789320

  43. And while everyone is watching documentaries a ‘must see’ is SECOND OPINION as revealed by Ralph Moss on the REAL story of Memorial Sloan-Kettering’s lies about the defamed Cancer substance known as Laetrile, Amygdalin, and often referred to as vitamin B-17. This story will make you just plain sick!

    1. The metabolism of amygdalin produces hydrogen cyanide, a potent toxin. Beta-glucosidase, one of the enzymes that catalyzes the release of cyanide from amygdalin, is present in the human small intestine and in a variety of common foods. This leads to an unpredictable and potentially lethal toxicity when amygdalin or laetrile is taken orally. Ingestion of purified amygdalin or apricot kernels can cause severe toxicity and death due to cyanide poisoning. Numerous case reports in medical literature describe serious cyanide poisoning in patients who ingested laetrile as a cancer treatment. Blood cyanide concentrations may be measured as a means of confirming the diagnosis in hospitalized patients or to assist in the forensic investigation of a fatal overdose. Pubmed 7072244, 219680, 7222669, 6796962 and 6781723
      A 2011 systematic review from the Cochrane Collaboration found: ”The claims that laetrile or amygdalin have beneficial effects for cancer patients are not currently supported by sound clinical data. There is a considerable risk of serious adverse effects from cyanide poisoning after laetrile or amygdalin, especially after oral ingestion. The risk–benefit balance of laetrile or amygdalin as a treatment for cancer is therefore unambiguously negative” The authors also recommended, on ethical grounds, that no further clinical research into laetrile or amygdalin be conducted. Pubmed 22071824
      Given the lack of evidence, laetrile has not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The U.S. National Institutes of Health evaluated the evidence separately and concluded that clinical trials of amygdalin showed little or no effect against cancer. For example, a 1982 trial by the Mayo Clinic of 175 patients found that tumor size had increased in all but one patient. The authors reported that “the hazards of amygdalin therapy were evidenced in several patients by symptoms of cyanide toxicity or by blood cyanide levels approaching the lethal range.” Pubmed 7033783. Laetrile was proven clinically ineffective more than 30 years ago and is considered a canonical example of “quackery”

  44. Rick Simpson has no proof cannabis treats let alone cures cancer
    Some of the studies found evidence that cannabinoids, under some circumstances, can actually stimulate cancer cell growth and possibly contribute to tumor progression 15026328
    ”These effects while of potential benefits in some inflammatory/autoimmune diseases may worsen HIV infection, tumorigenesis and allergic inflammation in the lung.” 9858061
    Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol enhances breast cancer growth and metastasis by suppression of the antitumor immune response 15749859
    Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol inhibits antitumor immunity by a CB2 receptor-mediated, cytokine-dependent pathway 10861074
    Furthermore, cancer cells can develop resistance to cannabinoids and start growing again PMC3131933

  45. the mainstream oncologist are the real quacks they make money off the chemo that’s the only real reason they use it even if it does work

Comments are closed.