Dr. Burzynski's Plight (long post)

Dr. Burzynski's Plight (long post)

Chiropractic Healthiness » Chiropractor » Dr. Burzynski''s Plight (long post)

Question:

>> The FDA’s Unholy War Against Dr. Burzynski >What is being fought here is a war to prevent the collapse of a $900 >billion dollar per year industry. The industry of treating disease >symptoms rather than the cause of the disease and/or trying to cure >disease with patented chemicals and methods of treatment. The solutions >to all non-genetic disease can be found in organic chemistry.It should >be noted that organic molecules cannot be patented and as such have low >profit margins.

Actually, the main problem is plain old stupidity and pigheadedness, not some mythical global conspiracy. You give us docs way too much credit. The people who are trying to screw Dr. B are a bunch of ambitious local Federal Attorneys who don’t know any better and believe what they are told by a few local docs. They are mis-using laws passed by a bunch of pandering polititians in your congress to "protect" us. Many in the doctor trade are absolutely appalled. Dr. P.

Response:

: :> The FDA’s Unholy War Against Dr. Burzynski : :What is being fought here is a war to prevent the collapse of a $900 :billion dollar per year industry. The industry of treating disease :symptoms rather than the cause of the disease and/or trying to cure :disease with patented chemicals and methods of treatment. The solutions :to all non-genetic disease can be found in organic chemistry.It should :be noted that organic molecules cannot be patented and as such have low :profit margins. : Organic molecules are those containing carbon atoms. Almost all drugs are organic molecules. Burzynski isn’t a miracle cure for all cancers, *he* certainly doesn’t claim it is! It’s just another approach, and one that apparently does have some merit, IMHO. There simply are no known miracle cures for cancer. Even if there are alternatives with some merit. The medical profession in the past has certainly embraced more effective lower cost methods of treating illness. What ever happend to TB sanitoriums, and Iron Lungs? Well antibiotics, better sanitation, and vaccines. That’s what. -Steve Dunn

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The FDA’s Unholy War Against Dr. Burzynski >What is being fought here is a war to prevent the collapse of a $900 >billion dollar per year industry. The industry of treating disease >symptoms rather than the cause of the disease and/or trying to cure >disease with patented chemicals and methods of treatment. The solutions >to all non-genetic disease can be found in organic chemistry.It should >be noted that organic molecules cannot be patented and as such have low >profit margins. >The information required to bring the collapse of the medical industry >as we know it is out there. Many rely on the media to make them aware of >this type of information. It should be understood that the medical >industry is the second largest advertiser. This means that the media >itself lives has a vested interest in supporting this $900 billion >dollar per year industry. As such they play the medical industry’s tune. >Of course there are some exceptions to this.

As one of "them", I take exception. The main problem is plain old ignorance, stupidi

Response:

Saying that talented people may be forced to move to another country is also a false hope. Immigration policies are being increasingly restricted as a means of controlling populations.

Response:

> The FDA’s Unholy War Against Dr. Burzynski

What is being fought here is a war to prevent the collapse of a $900 billion dollar per year industry. The industry of treating disease symptoms rather than the cause of the disease and/or trying to cure disease with patented chemicals and methods of treatment. The solutions to all non-genetic disease can be found in organic chemistry.It should be noted that organic molecules cannot be patented and as such have low profit margins. The information required to bring the collapse of the medical industry as we know it is out there. Many rely on the media to make them aware of this type of information. It should be understood that the medical industry is the second largest advertiser. This means that the media itself lives has a vested interest in supporting this $900 billion dollar per year industry. As such they play the medical industry’s tune. Of course there are some exceptions to this. Consumer demand will end in the end as it has already been winning for the last five years. THe solution is distrubution of the knowledge needed for bio-chemical enhancement of the body using organic chemistry. Richard

Response:

Below is a supplement to the January 1996 "Health and Healing" newsletter by Dr. Julian Whitaker. The "Health and Healing" newsletter has a circulation of over 400,000, which makes it the most widely read of any alternative health newsletter. The Life Extension Foundation, Gary Null, and others have also disseminated a considerable amount of information concerning the plight of Dr. Burzynski. Regardless of whether you are interested in Dr. Burzynski’s cancer treatments or not, anyone who is concerned about freedom and the abusive actions of our government should read the following article by Dr. Whitaker. The FDA’s Unholy War Against Dr. Burzynski As I discussed in November, Stanislaw Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D., has been treating cancer patients for years with a nontoxic therapy he discovered called antineo– plastons. Many patients with terminal cancers taking this therapy are now in complete remission. Despite the obvious evidence of benefit, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been trying to put Dr. Burzynski out of business for the past 12 years. This culminated on November 20, 1995 in 75 criminal charges that could put this talented physician in jail for 229 years! It all started in 1983 when the American Cancer Society put Dr. Burzynski’s therapy on their "unproven methods" blacklist. A few months later, the FDA filed a civil suit in federal court in an attempt to shut him down. Federal Judge Gabrielle McDonald ruled that Dr. Burzynski could continue his work, but did stipu- late that he could not ship the therapy across state tines. The vendetta began. The FDA Used Dirty Tactics Robert Spiller, the FDA lawyer assigned to this case, was furious that the judge did not put Dr. Burzynski out of business, and told Dr Burzynski’s defense lawyer, "Well we did not get him that way, but we can use the criminal system." Since 1983, Spiller, the FDA, and a parade of mindless US attorneys have terrorized Dr Burzynski with raids on his clinic in Houston, Texas, and have used the grand jury system to harass Dr. Burzynski and his staff. In 1985, the FDA convened the first grand jury, then raided his clinic and seized virtually all of his medical records (11 filing cabinets full). Because Dr. Burzynski could not practice medicine without the charts, the court ordered the FDA to "allow him" to come to FDA offices in Houston and copy the charts at his expense. In spite of all this activity, there was no indictment. A second grand jury in 1990 subpoenaed 100,000 more documents, but after nine months of investiga- tion, the FDA did not convince the grand jury to indict Dr. Burzynski. To date, the FDA has not returned those medical records and subpoenaed documents. He Did Everything by the Book In 1991, experts from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) carefully reviewed the charts of seven patients with "incurable" brain cancer who were being treated with antineoplastons. They noted antitumor action in all seven, complete remission in five, and called for long-term trials to more accurately assess benefit. Dr. Burzynski then submitted copious data to the FDA, seeking permission to do the necessary trials. From 1991 to 1993, while the FDA "sat" on the request, Dr. Burzynski was under constant investiga- tion by the FDA and the US Attorney’s office as they sought to demonstrate that he was sending his therapy across state tines. A third grand jury was convened tn 1994-and yet again failed to indict. The Texas Medical Board Jumped In As if not to be outdone by Robert Spiller and the FDA, the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners is also out to get Dr. Burzynski. There has never been a patient complaint to the Board against Dr. Burzynski. In spite of that, in 1994, they tried to put him on indefinite probation. The probation requirements were hostile, restrictive, demeaning, and more appro- priate for a paroled felon than a physician who had never had a complaint nor been charged with a crime. In fact, some of the requirements were paternalis- tic nonsense. For instance, one was that Dr. Burzynski abide by Texas and federal law, as if he was not required to abide by the law ordinarily. More omi- nous, several requirements were open to subjective interpretation. Anyone reading them would conclude that it was not an effort by the Board to safeguard the public, or even uphold the law. It was more a step toward closing Dr Burzynski’s practice. The Medical Board contended that Dr. Burzynski should he on probation in a 20-page "finding of fact" court document. In that document, it was confirmed that many of Dr. Burzynski’s patients had not been helped by conventional therapy, yet were alive because of antineoplastons. In addition, seven physi- cians including the chief of neuroradiology at the National Institutes of Health-testified that without antineoplastons many patients would die. This testi- mony was not contested by the State or the Board. However, the Texas Medical Board didn’t care. They wrote that "the efficacy of antineoplastons in the treatment of human cancers is not of issue in these proceedings and went on about their business of destroying Dr. Burzynski and the therapy. That document was signed by Board president John M. Lewis, M.D., a Houston cardiologist. Folks, what kind of doctor would try to "get" another doctor by using as evidence a "finding of fact" document that large numbers of patients would die as a result? what has happened to our civilization? The Case Was Dismissed Fortunately, Judge Paul Davis was both more rea- sonable and compassionate than the "good ol’ boys" on the Board. He threw the case out, and chastised the board for being "arbitrary and capricious," and for "abuse of discretion." The Medical Board appealed, and the case is with another group of judges. In 1994, the FDA granted Dr. Burzynski permission to do clinical trials on antineoplastons. He has begun four separate trials at his own expense. You might imagine that since the FDA had approved the trials they would have left him alone. Not so. On March 24, 1995, Dr. Burzynski appeared on the CBS This Morning Show, along with three patients who had been diagnosed as terminal but were now free of cancer. The effect this TV appearance had on the FDA was like shaking a cage full of rattle- snakes and pouring them over Dr. Burzynski’s head. The FDA Vendetta Continued That very afternoon the FDA raided Dr. Burzynski’s clinic, herded employees into a closed room, and wouldn’t let them out until they had given the FDA a lot of personal information. They spent seven hours ransacking the clinic, and left with boxloads of documents. With this, the FDA kicked off the fourth and most malicious of all grand jury investigations. For eight months, there were monthly rounds of subpoenas. As with all grand jury interrogates, witnesses had to appear without a lawyer, and were at the mercy of the prosecuting attorney. After a full day of abusive ques- tioning by an assistant US attorney, a receptionist at the clinic, Eva Vigh, collapsed with a heart attack and has yet to recover. If you still harbor the delusion that Robert Spiller, the FDA, and the US attorneys are trying to protect you against cancer fraud, let me tell you that in June of this year, the FDA raided and seized the X-rays and MRIs of Dr. Burzynski’s most responsive patients, including the "best-case" series evaluated by the NCI. This was done to prevent him from showing this evi- dence that the therapy works. Incredibly, as a society, we are desperately looking for a cancer cure, yet when one is found the FDA seizes the evidence, then works to put the discoverer in jail. Federal Judge Lynn Hughes ordered the FDA to make copies of the X-rays and return the originals, which they did. Of the almost one million documents and items the FDA has seized over the past 13 years, these X-rays are the only items they have returned and that only because of a court order. of course, the Bill of Rights forbids arbitrary government seizure of property, but who cares? Wouldn’t You Want a Life-Saving Therapy? Now look at your spouse, your children, and your grandchildren. Imagine that one of them had an inop- erable brain tumor the size of an orange, and that with the antineoplastons developed by Dr. Burzynski, it had shrunk to the size of a pea. I want you to know that in order to "get" Dr. Burzynski, Robert Spiller would think nothing of com- ing into your home and seizing the antineoplaston therapy, knowing that it was the only hope your loved one had to avoid a horrible death. Robert Spiller has done well at the FDA. He is now Associate Chief Counsel for Enforcement. Folks, over the past five years we have gotten involved in a variety of important causes, and have had an impact. However, our support of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski is more important than all of them com- bined, because of what is at stake. If the FDA wins its unholy war with Dr. Burzynski they will not only destroy one of the most promising cancer therapies we have, they will also reinforce the message that any physician or scientist with the talent, energy, and courage to make a positive difference in the health field, had best move to another country. Is that what you want? Dr. Burzynski does not have the money necessary to save his therapy and himself. Without a dime from the government or any other agency, he discovered, developed, and even synthesized a truly significant breakthrough in cancer. And hounding him all the way was Robert Spiller and the FDA-with your tax dollars. Is Robert Spiller helping you? Let’s Get Behind Dr. Burzynski Supporters of Dr Burzynski have set up a legal defense fund. I encourage you to give any amount you feel you can. For a $50 donation, the defense fund has put together an information packet on … read more »

Response:

:writes: :> : :I think everyone who participates in this newsgroup will agree :that it is rather unusual for patients to hire a lawyer to support :their doctor. Such things may still happen in small towns :somewhere, but I have not heard of a similar situation in recent :years. Perhaps some of the arrogant doctors who post on this :newsgroup will attribute this to the ignorance of his patients. It :seems that many doctors believe that ordinary people (meaning :non-doctors) do not have sufficient intelligence to evaluate :whether or not they have been helped by a particular treatment. :They don’t believe the treatment has any value unless they can :read favorable evaluations of it in a peer reviewed medical :journal. : :For the sake of argument, just assume that his treatments actually :work. Does anyone really think that he would ever get the results f his studies published in a peer reviewed journal, regardless f how convincing they were? : Well first, I’ve talked to lots of patients who in fact are not knowledgable enough to tell if they definitely benefited from a treatment – it’s extremely common. At the same time, many other patients know exactly what’s going on and can think about it rationally. Not only that, you can tell which kind of patient you’re talking. However, there’s no need to invoke the intolerance of the medical community to explain an *assumed* lack of published data, because in fact Burzynski has published extensively in the peer reviewed medical literature, including quite a few clinical studies. Now you can decide for yourself if his indictment for treating patients is more or less outragous than you thought before! -Steve Dunn

Response:

writes: >For the sake of argument, just assume that his treatments actually >work. Does anyone really think that he would ever get the results >of his studies published in a peer reviewed journal, regardless >of how convincing they were?

For the sake of argument, you ought to educate yourself by actually reading some peer-reviewed science journals once in a while. They don’t always support the status quo. The last paper I saw on homeopathy, in fact, was a study which found it better than placebo for infantile diarrhea, and it was published in the Journal of Pediatrics. They published it because the design was flawless, not because it came to a conclusion they would have predicted. (Now if somebody would only repeat it a few times, the homeopaths might get a hearing….) >Dr. Burzynski’s problem is that he didn’t realize how the system >really works in this country, A doctor who doesn’t have friends >in the right places in the medical establishment has very >little chance of success in a situation like this, no matter how good >his treatment might be.

If that was true, we would still be treating peptic ulcers with just antacids, instead of with the antibiotics that an outsider named Barry Marshall advocated (alone) just a decade ago. Marshall had to friends in high places– he was an unknown guy from another country halfway round the world. But he did have two things going for him– his experiments were repeatable, and he was right. > If I knew him personally, I >would advise him to move outside the US and continue his work. >Danny

Sure, to Tijuana. JUST the place for the man. Steve Harris, M.D.

Response:

I believe that Dr. Burzynski is going to be represented by Jerry Spence, a very famous attorney. You may know his face and not his name; he often wears western fringed jackets and has a TV show on CNBC. He won Randy Weaver’s case against Federal Government excesses, and that is really the basic life-and-death issue at state in Dr. Burzynski’s case as well. Best Wishes == Bob Yazz ==

Response:

writes: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I believe that Dr. Burzynski is going to be represented by Jerry Spence, >a very famous attorney. >You may know his face and not his name; he often wears western >fringed jackets and has a TV show on CNBC. >He won Randy Weaver’s case against Federal Government excesses, and >that is really the basic life-and-death issue at state in Dr. Burzynski’s >case as well. >Best Wishes >== Bob Yazz ==

I hadn’t heard that Jerry Spence was representing Dr. Burzynski, but I watched the Jerry Spence TV program on CNBC last weekend, and the entire program was devoted to the Bryzinski situation. There were interviews with some of his patients and an attorney who was representing those patients. Also, film clips were shown of numerous patients carrying signs in support of Dr. Burzynski outside the Houston Courthouse. The attorney who was representing the patients was interviewed and indicated that she had received hundreds of FAX’s and letters supporting Dr. Burzynski. Jerry Spence seemed outraged by what was happening to Dr. Bryzinski, and although he stated he had talked to him by telephone, he did not indicate at that time that he would be personally involved in the case. In general, I don’t admire lawyers any more than I admire doctors, but I have a considerable amount of respect for Jerry Spence. If it hadn’t been for him, I doubt that the abusive actions by government agencies against Randy Weaver would have ever been publicized. I hope you are correct that he is going to represent Dr. Burzynski, and I hope that he will be able to help correct a terrible injustice. I think everyone who participates in this newsgroup will agree that it is rather unusual for patients to hire a lawyer to support their doctor. Such things may still happen in small towns somewhere, but I have not heard of a similar situation in recent years. Perhaps some of the arrogant doctors who post on this newsgroup will attribute this to the ignorance of his patients. It seems that many doctors believe that ordinary people (meaning non-doctors) do not have sufficient intelligence to evaluate whether or not they have been helped by a particular treatment. They don’t believe the treatment has any value unless they can read favorable evaluations of it in a peer reviewed medical journal. For the sake of argument, just assume that his treatments actually work. Does anyone really think that he would ever get the results of his studies published in a peer reviewed journal, regardless of how convincing they were? Dr. Burzynski’s problem is that he didn’t realize how the system really works in this country, A doctor who doesn’t have friends in the right places in the medical establishment has very little chance of success in a situation like this, no matter how good his treatment might be. If I knew him personally, I would advise him to move outside the US and continue his work. Danny

Response:

: :You don’t seem to get it, Steve. You have to weigh all the evidence in :the balance. I agree with you just exactly – one has to weigh all of the evidence in the balance. :You aren’t doing that. You ignore the numerous negative :results in animal tumor lines (Sigma-Tau conducted these, as I’ve told :you before, which is why they cancelled plans to develop :antineoplastons) as well as the negative results that the NCI has :reported and that I’ve reported here and you simply ignore them in :favor of boosting Burzynski. Not at all. I have previously stated that it is well known that some negative results even in effective treatments are common. For the treatment that saved my life, interleukin-2, I can point to plenty of negative results, including clinical trials in which not a single patient benefited. A few negative results do not automatically mean the treatment is of no value. You have to weigh all of the evidence together, just as you say. Although you repeatedly cite these negative tests, neither of which have been published, and for neither of which do we have any details which might help us judge their significance. But then you completely ignore the published animal and in vitro tests on phenylacetate, and also the tests on antineoplastons from Japan, all of which are from independent researchers, all of which report positive results. And you completely ignore the human clinical results, from Burzynski himself, despite the fact that he has published repeatedly, and despite the fact that NCI investigation of some of his brain tumor cases show that there was response to treatment – which has also been discussed repeatedly here. I have previously posted citations and abstract to illustrate each of these points, as you well know. :You also ignore the fact that Burzynski lied about NCI test results. :Amazing Given your and Saul Green’s record of rampant distortion and misrepresentation on the subject of Dr. Burzynski’s integrity, I certainly don’t accept that Dr. Burzynski "lied" about negative test results especially considering that you have not produced specific evidence. :But this could all be so easily solved, Burzynski has been treating :patients for 30 years. Go back 10 years. How many of those patients :are alive today because of antineoplastons? How many of those patients :are alive at all? I don’t believe that any of them are. : :Heck, go back to those 7 miracle patients that you keep talking about :from the NCI report. How many of those are alive today? : :You don’t need to keep doing this pathetic dance – just show us those :miracle cures, Steve. : I previously posted evidence in excruciating detail for the case of "R.W" one of the seven cases investigated by NCI, and who is apparently still alive today. This is the case of "Ryan". This young boy had anaplastic astrocytoma with demonstrable progression following external beam radiotherapy, and did not begin anti-neoplaston treatment for four months following completion of radiotherapy. He was judged by NCI investigators to be in complete response, and based on another posting here he apparently is still alive and well. But it’s you, Scott, who talk about "miracles" – not me. I have never claimed that antineoplaston treatment was either a guaranteed miracle cure, nor have I claimed that it was better than conventional treatment. My claim is quite limited: That there is evidence for anti-tumor effect of some of Dr. Burzynski’s drugs. That’s it. And Burzynski did not claim miracles for the seven patients investigated by NCI either. In fact two of them were already dead at the time of the presentation (And this was not, of course, concealed). The cases were selected for their ability to demonstrate biological effect of antineoplaston treatment – tumor shrinkage. They were evidently not selected as "miracles", but for their scientific value. :I hope you won’t mind if we don’t take your word for it, Dr. Dunn. Sarcasm will get you nowhere, Mr. Ballantyne. I hope you don’t mind if we don’t take sarcasm as a substitute for intelligent debate. To sum up: On the one hand, we have Mr. Ballantyne’s unpublished negative animal tests at Sigma Tau, and at NCI, and one unverified claim that Dr. Burzynski once lied about the NCI tests. On the other hand, we have numerous published positive in vitro and animal tests for both phenylacetate, the major component of antineoplaston A2S-1, by researchers here and abroad, and antineoplastons themselves. We also have Burzynski’s published clinical results, confirmed in some instances by the NCI investigation of some of his brain tumor cases, initial encouraging reports from an independent phase I trial of phenylacetate (With more trials ongoing now), and some reports of clinical benefit from Japan as well. Weighing the evidence, it seems rational to conclude there’s probably something to antineoplaston therapy – not that it’s a miracle cure or proven to be better than any conventional treatment – but that on balance the evidence points to the conclusion that this treatment likely does have some degree of effectivness. -Steve Dunn

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Dunn) writes: >I previously posted evidence in excruciating detail for the case of "R.W" >one of the seven cases investigated by NCI, and who is apparently still >alive today. This is the case of "Ryan". This young boy had anaplastic >astrocytoma with demonstrable progression following external beam >radiotherapy, and did not begin anti-neoplaston treatment for four months >following completion of radiotherapy. He was judged by NCI investigators >to be in complete response, and based on another posting here he >apparently is still alive and well.

Whoa there! As I remember this kid was staged as either II or III grade astrocytoma (I don’t know how they did that– biopsy I presume– but NOT glioblastoma (grade IV). But unlike gd IV, the II and III astrocytoma classification is not always fatal– many are cured with radiation, which this kid had. As for "progression" after radiation, this happens also, since the capillary death which radiation causes, does not reach its maximum effect on tumors for weeks and even months after the full radiation course is finished. That is a fact. This kid’s tumor was cystic (fluid filled), and it dramatically shrank over a short period some months after radiotherapy. Surprise, this happens also when a necrosing tumor drains into another brain fluid space, and its internal fluid disappears into the CSF. Nothing miraculous about it– it’s a well-known phenomenon. In short, dispite the breathless testimony before congress, this kid’s experience was nothing particularly out of the ordinary for standard medical therapy. You’d need a dozen like him, with the same results in all, to say that something strange was going on. >But it’s you, Scott, who talk about "miracles" – not me. I have never >claimed that antineoplaston treatment was either a guaranteed miracle >cure, nor have I claimed that it was better than conventional treatment. >My claim is quite limited: That there is evidence for anti-tumor effect of >some of Dr. Burzynski’s drugs. That’s it.

Sorry, I say there isn’t. And you haven’t presented ANY case, or collection of cases, which suggests there is. No fair picking out Burzynski’s best half-dozen "results" in a serious of people with tumors which aren’t always fatal. You DO see the problem with that, I hope? >The cases were >selected for their ability to demonstrate biological effect of >antineoplaston treatment – tumor shrinkage.

Sorry, this means NOTHING in a person who has been treated with radiation and/or has a cystic tumor. Find me some people who got tumor shrinkage in people who had had NO radiation, or had a tumor like glioblastoma which laughs at radiation. Then, you’ll have some interesting cases. >On the other hand, we have numerous published positive in vitro and animal >tests for both phenylacetate, the major component of antineoplaston A2S-1, >by researchers here and abroad, and antineoplastons themselves.

No, we don’t. >We also have Burzynski’s published clinical results,

Citation? confirmed in some >instances by the NCI investigation of some of his brain tumor cases, Wrong. NCI could not tell if they were seeing something out of the ordinary with these cases or not, for the reasons noted above. I talked to the NCI radiologist about this, remember? I reported the conversation to you, and told you the NCI could not say anything one way or the other about what they saw on the brain scans. Steve Harris, M.D.

Response:

snip…. >Or, how about the established medical profession? But, of course >THEY are the ones who have done the most to persecute other >forms of medicine in the interest of eliminating "quacks". The AMA >has lost several cases in the US Supreme Court because of their >unjust persecution of chiropractors. And they continue to persecute >alternative forms of medicine — even when they develop them >and do the research. >Consider heart bypass surgery. It is, as I understand it, a nearly >useless operation — it doesn’t extend the patient’s life, it costs >an incrediable amount of money and the only "relief" the patient >gets is from cutting the nerves to the heart so they can’t feel >the discomfort associated with their condition.

If memory serves about some papers, it’s actually a bit better than this if you pick your patients, but you may have a point. No question about symtomatic relief tho… Remember– " A chance to cut is a chance to cure "<g>. >This is one of the widest practiced operations around. And makes >heart surgeons a heap of money. Does the FDA stop that? No, >they consider it perfectly acceptable.

The FDA has no control over surgical procedure, thank goodness… If they did, the situation would be as bad as you point out with respect to drugs. snip… >So, who can you trust to make these decisions? I am not willing >to let ANYONE other than myself have life and death veto power >over my medical treatments. And I feel that this is a fundamental >human right. Perhaps not observed as such by governments, but >that does not change the ethical position.

Absolutely… > Naturally, this presumes that buyers have enough medical > knowledge that they can engage in something resembling >"free choice." >If they don’t, then they are perfectly free to accept the advice >of an allopath. Or any other medical professional they care >to trust. >Frankly, I was looking to see if Dr Proctor had a _medical_ basis for >(apparently) supporting Burzynski’s cancer treatments

Actually, it is some anecdotal stuff I’ve heard about some (perhaps temporary) remissions. Plus, I read a paper or two of Dr. B’s (?) back in the ’70’s. Notice that I said that I thought that there was "something there", not that he was curing large numbers of otherwise intractable solid tumors. If you use that criteria, then the Gummit would have to shut down most cancer centers. or whether, >>like you, without knowing anything about it, he thinks Burzynski, or >>anyone else who wants to go into the cancer business, should be >>allowed to do so. Actually, I think that there should be a lot of leeway in the treatment of otherwise intractable illness. I’ve also been around the "cancer establishment " myself to understand its blind spots. You may think they have some special knowledge, but they do not. BTW, I come from a "cancer family" myself and am very interested in therapeutic progress… >I am not saying that EVERY doctor, or even most, are driven by >the need to make more money. As a matter of fact, I don’t know >a doctor primarily driven by the need to make money — but on >the other hand, if a person’s livelyhood is threatened they are >bound to be more resistant to that which threatens. >And look at the areas where the conventional treatment is both >least effective and costs the most and that is where there is the >most resistance to alternative treatments. There just MIGHT be >a relationship!

It’s actually more guilt and denial on the part of the docs. To do what they do, many physicians who deal with potentially deadly diseases develop a lot of defenses such as delusions of omnipotence and omniscience. Some of these are not well-integrated psychologically. Clinical oncologists are always wondering subconciously if there was just one more thing they could have done. Along comes someone who says there was –generating more guilt. The defense mechanisms they develop to help them cope get pierced (particularly omniscience), so they resist anything new or unusual. Me, I’m glad I’m in dermatology… Dr. Dr. Peter Proctor

Response:

Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative,sci.life-extension,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic Summary: Expires: Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: MagNET Keywords: Cc: [I wrote] :> :> Actually, Scott has heard of some Burzynski cases that have followed a :> course not consistent with the natural history of the disease. In 1991 :> investigators from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) conducted an :> extremely thorough review of seven cases of patients with brain tumors. :> The investigators concluded that there were responses to treatment. These :> are scientific experts from the heart of the establishmnent who are :> certainly aware of problems like concurrent conventional therapy – yet :> their conclusion was that responses had occurred. :> : [Scott Opined] :No Steve, the researchers did not conclude this and I have yet to see :a Burzynski case that is out of the ordinary. The report clearly states that responses objective responses were demonstrated in the individual cases. I don’t know if you are aware of this, Scott, but brain tumors don’t usually go a way on their own. H lease feel free to tell :us what was out of the ordinary for the 7 cancer patients? Wasn’t :your young fellow Ryan one of those cancer patients? How is that case ut of the ordinary? : Er well, other than being in apparent complete remission years after antineoplaston treatment for an aggressive brain tumor following failure of radiation therapy – other than that, why nothing at all. (see below). :Answer: As Dr. Harris and others pointed out to you: It isn’t, and :neither are any of the others. I responded to Harris on this group about the Ryan case – go look it up. I have the actual documentation from the NCI report, and this patient had an aggressive brain tumor with clear evidence of progression following conventional radiotherapy, followed by objective complete response on anti-neoplastons as judged by the NCI neuroradiologist. And from earlier postings, it sounds like the kid is still find. Harris was way off here. He didn’t apparently have the documentation I’ve got. : :The researchers recommended phase II trials to determine efficacy, :and these trials were scheduled and then Burzynski sued them when they :tried to increase accrual. So the trials were cancelled. Quite so. Efficacy in terms of a response rate. And a seven case review does not permit estimation of a response rate. Agree. But the issue here is your assertion that there are no cases of benefit, and your statement here is not germane. : :> Scott and I have discussed this numerous times, so he is definitely aware :> of it. He has in the past, despite the fact that the charts, the MRI :> scans, and the pathology were reviewed in detail by the NCI experts, :> asserted that this isn’t good enough because they didn’t examine the :> patients themselves. This is a pretty thin excuse for dismissing the NCI :> investigation, IMHO. :> : :As usual Steve, you go too far. I do not dismiss the NCI :investigation, I dismiss your overly partisan view of the NCI :investigation as well as your insistence on ignoring all other :evidence, including evidence of scientific wrong doing on the part of :Burzynski himself. OK – let’s have a discussion about what part of the NCI investigation you don’t dismiss. You state above in this very letter that you haven’t heard of a single case where benefit was verified. Sounds pretty dismissive to me. So, Scott, what *do* you make of the NCI investigation? What part don’t you dismiss? Are you admitting that there *is* some evidence? Please don’t be shy now! : :> Scott is also aware that antineoplaston A2S-1 is 80% phenylacetate, a :> differentiating agent now under conventional investigation which has shown :> anti-cancer effects in animals, and preliminarily in patients in a phase I :> study conducted at NCI – and in brain and prostate tumors, the very tumors :> in which Burzynski claims his best results. : uh. Phase I trials do not test efficacy, phase II trials do :that. Phase I trials demonstrate safety. Don’t know much about clinical trials do you? Of course Phase I trials are not designed to show efficacy, none the less some patients with measurable tumor may be entered into phase one trials, and objective response may be measured, and even when objective response is not measured due to lack of measurable disease, other things such as improvement in performance statis may be noted. In plainer english, Scott, doctors running phase I trials actually do take note of whether the treatment has a positive effect on the patients – even if that isn’t the primary endpoint of the trial. Trust me Scott, I was *in* a phase I trial, and I *know* how it was reported, and I’ve read many others, including the phenylacetate trial. :And, DUH – please feel free to cite the research showing positive :effects of phenylacetate in humans or animal brain or prostate :cancer. I’d be delighted to read it. I asked you for this once before. I’ll Email you some cites – I’ve got a medline search on this. I’ll post just one abstract here. Samid D Ram Z Hudgins WR Shack S Liu L Walbridge S Oldfield EH Myers CE Selective activity of phenylacetate against malignant gliomas: resemblance to fetal brain damage in phenylketonuria. In: Cancer Res (1994 Feb 15) 54(4):891-5 Phenylacetate, a deaminated metabolite of phenylalanine, has been implicated in damage to immature brain in phenylketonuria. Because primary brain tumors are highly reminiscent of the immature central nervous system, these neoplasms should be equally vulnerable. We show here that sodium phenylacetate can induce cytostasis and reversal of malignant properties of cultured human glioblastoma cells, when used at pharmacological concentrations that are well tolerated by children and adults. Treated tumor cells exhibited biochemical alterations similar to those observed in phenylketonuria-like conditions, including selective decline in de novo cholesterol synthesis from mevalonate. Because gliomas, but not mature normal brain cells, are highly dependent on mevalonate for production of sterols and isoprenoids vital for cell growth, sodium phenylacetate would be expected to affect tumor growth in vivo while sparing normal tissues. Systemic treatment of rats bearing intracranial gliomas resulted in significant tumor suppression with no apparent toxicity to the host. The data indicate that phenylacetate, acting through inhibition of protein prenylation and other mechanisms, may offer a safe and effective novel approach to treatment of malignant gliomas and perhaps other neoplasms as well. Institutional address: Clinical Pharmacology Branch National Cancer Institute National Institutes of Health Bethesda Maryland 20892. -Steve Dunn

Response:

> You are making yourself look rather silly by > criticizing Dr. Bryzinski’s treatment and comparing it > with the "cold fusion fiasco".

No he isn’t Cold Fusion is generall accepted as one of the biggest fiascos in physicst this century. Mikal Persson (Fusion Scientist)

Response:

> ::And, DUH – please feel free to cite the research showing positive > ::effects of phenylacetate in humans or animal brain or prostate > ::cancer. I’d be delighted to read it. I asked you for this once before. > Oh and one other way that you demonstrate your ignorance on the subject of > cancer clinical trials – you acknowledge that there was a phase I clinical > trial of phenylacetate, but then express apparent skeptism when I say that > there were positive animal, and I’ll add in vitro results prior to the > phase I trial.

You don’t seem to get it, Steve. You have to weigh all the evidence in the balance. You aren’t doing that. You ignore the numerous negative results in animal tumor lines (Sigma-Tau conducted these, as I’ve told you before, which is why they cancelled plans to develop antineoplastons) as well as the negative results that the NCI has reported and that I’ve reported here and you simply ignore them in favor of boosting Burzynski. You also ignore the fact that Burzynski lied about NCI test results. Amazing. But this could all be so easily solved, Burzynski has been treating patients for 30 years. Go back 10 years. How many of those patients are alive today because of antineoplastons? How many of those patients are alive at all? I don’t believe that any of them are. Heck, go back to those 7 miracle patients that you keep talking about from the NCI report. How many of those are alive today? You don’t need to keep doing this pathetic dance – just show us those miracle cures, Steve. I hope you won’t mind if we don’t take your word for it, Dr. Dunn. sdb — – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Phase I trials do not start until adequate pre-clinical work has been > done to delineate the toxicity profile of the drug in animals, and to > provide some indication of anti-tumor effect before human testing begins. > If there is no evidence that the drug could have anti-tumor effect, it is > not tested in human patients. > So if you knew how clinical trials work, you would’ve known there must’ve > been positive pre-clinical results – indeed you’d have been very surprised > if there *weren’t* pre-clinical results – and if you were really > interested in learning about this stuff rather than making debating > points, your intellectual curiosity would have propelled you to look into > it yourself – rather than to merely remark skeptically that I didn’t > previously provide you with cites. I’m afraid, Scott, that your ignorance > is showing, or your prejudices, or both. > -Steve Dunn

Response:

> The report clearly states that responses objective responses were > demonstrated in the individual cases. I don’t know if you are aware of > this, Scott, but brain tumors don’t usually go a way on their own. H

But Steve, the Burzynski teated brain tumors haven’t gone away on their own, as you know. You’ve been told that the blastoma people were dead, having survived two years. No doubt you will choose to believe that this is unusual but of course it is not – it is a lesser percent but it certainly should not be classed as unusual. As for the case of cystic tumors, they most certainly do go away, very often on their own or due to factors completed unrelated to treatment. I know of one case of a `cure’ by concussion. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Er well, other than being in apparent complete remission years after > antineoplaston treatment for an aggressive brain tumor following failure of > radiation therapy – other than that, why nothing at all. (see below). > :Answer: As Dr. Harris and others pointed out to you: It isn’t, and > :neither are any of the others. > I responded to Harris on this group about the Ryan case – go look it up. > I have the actual documentation from the NCI report, and this patient had an > aggressive brain tumor with clear evidence of progression following > conventional radiotherapy, followed by objective complete response on > anti-neoplastons as judged by the NCI neuroradiologist. And from earlier > postings, it sounds like the kid is still find. Harris was way off here. > He didn’t apparently have the documentation I’ve got.

It’s not a question of Dr. Harris not having the documentation you have, it’s a question of you not having the knowledge and experience to properly understand what you read. I took your report on the Ryan case to two different oncologists and presented the results here, should you care to look that up. Neither one were particularly surprised by anything except your interpretation of the NCI report. > OK – let’s have a discussion about what part of the NCI investigation you > don’t dismiss. You state above in this very letter that you haven’t heard > of a single case where benefit was verified. Sounds pretty dismissive to > me. So, Scott, what *do* you make of the NCI investigation? What part > don’t you dismiss? Are you admitting that there *is* some evidence? > Please don’t be shy now!

I thought that the Phase II trials were a good idea. That was the conclusion of the site visit team and I’ve always supported it. I also support basic research into anything, including PA for cancer. Nothing in the site visit report justifies treating patients with antineoplastons, nothing in the PA research justifies what Burzynski has done. You are unable to weigh the evidence in an impartial manner, Steve. In part this is because you don’t seem aware of your limitations — it requires more than just knowledge to evaluate things like the NCI site visit reports, it requires a lot of clinical experience as well. That’s why I do not rely on my own non-existent clinical experience but ask expert oncologists things like: "Is Ryan’s case unusual? Is survival for two years with a gliobastoma out of the ordinary in these circumstances?" Based on their answers, which were "no" and "no", I have to say that there does not appear to be any reason to believe that antineoplastons contributed anything to these cases. But perhaps I’m wrong, and you do have extensive clinical experience. In which case I’ll just ask you: How many astrocytomas have you treated with radiation that didn’t follow the same course as Ryans, and how many of your patients with glioblastomas did make it to the 2 year mark, and what, exactly did you treat them with, Dr. Dunn? sdb —

Response:

[I Wrote] ::> Scott is also aware that antineoplaston A2S-1 is 80% phenylacetate, a ::> differentiating agent now under conventional investigation which has shown ::> anti-cancer effects in animals, and preliminarily in patients in a phase I ::> study conducted at NCI – and in brain and prostate tumors, the very tumors ::> in which Burzynski claims his best results. [Scott Frothed] ::Duh. Phase I trials do not test efficacy, phase II trials do ::that. Phase I trials demonstrate safety. : [Later He fumed] ::And, DUH – please feel free to cite the research showing positive ::effects of phenylacetate in humans or animal brain or prostate ::cancer. I’d be delighted to read it. I asked you for this once before. Oh and one other way that you demonstrate your ignorance on the subject of cancer clinical trials – you acknowledge that there was a phase I clinical trial of phenylacetate, but then express apparent skeptism when I say that there were positive animal, and I’ll add in vitro results prior to the phase I trial. Phase I trials do not start until adequate pre-clinical work has been done to delineate the toxicity profile of the drug in animals, and to provide some indication of anti-tumor effect before human testing begins. If there is no evidence that the drug could have anti-tumor effect, it is not tested in human patients. So if you knew how clinical trials work, you would’ve known there must’ve been positive pre-clinical results – indeed you’d have been very surprised if there *weren’t* pre-clinical results – and if you were really interested in learning about this stuff rather than making debating points, your intellectual curiosity would have propelled you to look into it yourself – rather than to merely remark skeptically that I didn’t previously provide you with cites. I’m afraid, Scott, that your ignorance is showing, or your prejudices, or both. -Steve Dunn

Response:

: :I have yet to hear of a single Burzynski case that follows a course ther than the one it was expected to follow without antineoplastons. Actually, Scott has heard of some Burzynski cases that have followed a course not consistent with the natural history of the disease. In 1991 investigators from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) conducted an extremely thorough review of seven cases of patients with brain tumors. The investigators concluded that there were responses to treatment. These are scientific experts from the heart of the establishmnent who are certainly aware of problems like concurrent conventional therapy – yet their conclusion was that responses had occurred. Scott and I have discussed this numerous times, so he is definitely aware of it. He has in the past, despite the fact that the charts, the MRI scans, and the pathology were reviewed in detail by the NCI experts, asserted that this isn’t good enough because they didn’t examine the patients themselves. This is a pretty thin excuse for dismissing the NCI investigation, IMHO. Scott is also aware that antineoplaston A2S-1 is 80% phenylacetate, a differentiating agent now under conventional investigation which has shown anti-cancer effects in animals, and preliminarily in patients in a phase I study conducted at NCI – and in brain and prostate tumors, the very tumors in which Burzynski claims his best results. So I don’t see why it would be surprising for A2S-1 to produce some remissions – but Scott can’t admit that because he is wedded to an extreme position that Burzynski’s treatment can’t possibly have any effect. -Steve Dunn

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Badanes) writes: > Dr Dr Peter Peter H. Proctor: > >Actually, the main problem is plain old stupidity and > >pigheadedness, not some mythical global conspiracy. You give > >us docs way too much credit. The people who are trying to screw > >Dr. B are a bunch of ambitious local Federal Attorneys who don’t > >know any better and believe what they are told by a few local > >docs. They are mis-using laws passed by a bunch of pandering > >polititians in your congress to "protect" us. Many in the > >doctor trade are absolutely appalled. >I assume from your remarks, that you are one of the "doctor trade" who >is "absolutely appalled." What is the medical and pharmacological >basis upon which you (apparently) support Burzynski’s antineoplaston >cancer therapy?

Actually, I’m an MD PhD clinical pharmacologisttoxicologist with a lot of publications in the area of cancer therapy ( do a medline using my name as a keyword if you like ). Trained at MD Anderson, arguably the worlds foremost cancer center ( I’m a Texan and got to brag ). I also have some patents in this area. FWIW, I’ve been following Dr. B’s work for some years and think there is something there. If ya wanna get into a prick-length contest— What are your credentials to say there is not ? > Or do you think that he should be allowed to sell his cancer treatments

for big-bucks (or even cheaply) if he can get away with it…no matter how unethical, or scientifically impoverished his work or thinking may be? If looked at with a jaundiced eye, the same can be said for a lot of established cancer therapies. The "war on cancer" started over 25 years ago and the cure rate for a lot of major solid tumors hasn’t changed very much ( controlling for earlier discovery, of course ). Also, stuff takes a long time to get to the clinical stage. As a PhD, I was working in the 70’s in areas that a lot of clinical oncologists are just now becoming aware of. One problem is that if they or their friends did not do it, it does not exist. I could tell you stories….. Nothing against the docs, you understand, I’m one myself. >The previous post should be distrubing to anyone who participates in >this newsgroup and is concerned with personal freedom. What is wrong >with the people who have cancer being allowed to make decisions >concerning the treatment they receive? I really don’t know how well >Dr. Burzynski’s treatments work, but I know that conventional cancer >treatments are not very successful, and I would want to have the right >to receive Dr. Burzynski’s treatment if I chose to do so. >Danny

Absolutely, Peter H. Proctor, PhD, MD

Response:

Badanes’ question: :I assume from your remarks, that you are one of the "doctor trade" :who is "absolutely appalled." What is the medical and :pharmacological basis upon which you (apparently) support :Burzynski’s antineoplaston cancer therapy? Proctor’s answer: >Actually, I’m an MD PhD clinical pharmacologisttoxicologist with a >lot of publications in the area of cancer therapy (do a medline >using my name as a keyword if you like). Trained at MD Anderson, >arguably the worlds foremost cancer center ( I’m a Texan and got to >brag ). I also have some patents in this area. FWIW, I’ve been >following Dr. B’s work for some years and think there is something >there. If ya wanna get into a prick-length contest— Well, Dr Dr…thank you for your measurements…er…credentials. I can see where your..um..head’s at >What are your credentials to say there is not? I haven’t SAID anything, Gargantu-man. So far, I’ve only asked you a question, knowing full-well that you were an MD and a pharmacologist from previous posts of yours. I think you’ll see that my question was phrased with this in mind…Dr Dr. :Or do you think that he should be allowed to sell his cancer :treatments for big-bucks (or even cheaply) if he can get away :with it…no matter how unethical, or scientifically impoverished :his work or thinking may be? >If looked at with a jaundiced eye, the same can be said for a lot >of established cancer therapies. The "war on cancer" started over >25 years ago and the cure rate for a lot of major solid tumors >hasn’t changed very much. This is still not an answer, Peter. Burzynski’s therapy doesn’t HAVE merit because of someone else’s failure. You know better than to offer this kind of lame reasoning. You claim to have followed Burzynski’s therapy for some years and believe that "there is something there." This is not very specific. So my question remains.."What is the medical and pharmacological basis upon which you (apparently) support Burzynski’s antineoplaston treatments?" Do you think, based on whatever this may be, AND your belief that "there IS something there," that this is _sufficient_ to open a cancer therapy business and charge customers for cancer treatments? Do you think that any ‘man with a plan’ should be able to sell cancer treatments? After all, you’ve argued (so far), cancer therapy is ‘going nowhere’; what’s the problem with opening up a business that caters to patients who have failed conventional therapy? That would represent a pretty good business opportunity, according to you. And you never know…right? >As a PhD, I was working in the 70’s in areas that a lot of >clinical oncologists are just now becoming aware of. One problem is >that if they or their friends did not do it, it does not exist. >I could tell you stories…..Nothing against the docs, you >understand, I’m one myself. Well, you sound like you might be disgruntled with the politics of medicine. So I am even more curious now to know if this is why you (apparently) defend Burzynski’s antineoplastons. Does Burzynski symbolize something for you or does his therapy have medical merit beyond, "[You] think there’s something there?" If it’s medical, what is it that’s "there?" Essentially it’s the same question I asked you before you felt compelled to wag your credential weenie. Incidentally, don’t hold back on the science…I’ll find someone to explain it to me if I don’t understand it. Thanks. JB.

Response:

> Actually, Scott has heard of some Burzynski cases that have followed a > course not consistent with the natural history of the disease. In 1991 > investigators from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) conducted an > extremely thorough review of seven cases of patients with brain tumors. > The investigators concluded that there were responses to treatment. These > are scientific experts from the heart of the establishmnent who are > certainly aware of problems like concurrent conventional therapy – yet > their conclusion was that responses had occurred.

No Steve, the researchers did not conclude this and I have yet to see a Burzynski case that is out of the ordinary. Please feel free to tell us what was out of the ordinary for the 7 cancer patients? Wasn’t your young fellow Ryan one of those cancer patients? How is that case out of the ordinary? Answer: As Dr. Harris and others pointed out to you: It isn’t, and neither are any of the others. The researchers recommended phase II trials to determine efficacy, and these trials were scheduled and then Burzynski sued them when they tried to increase accrual. So the trials were cancelled. > Scott and I have discussed this numerous times, so he is definitely aware > of it. He has in the past, despite the fact that the charts, the MRI > scans, and the pathology were reviewed in detail by the NCI experts, > asserted that this isn’t good enough because they didn’t examine the > patients themselves. This is a pretty thin excuse for dismissing the NCI > investigation, IMHO.

As usual Steve, you go too far. I do not dismiss the NCI investigation, I dismiss your overly partisan view of the NCI investigation as well as your insistence on ignoring all other evidence, including evidence of scientific wrong doing on the part of Burzynski himself. > Scott is also aware that antineoplaston A2S-1 is 80% phenylacetate, a > differentiating agent now under conventional investigation which has shown > anti-cancer effects in animals, and preliminarily in patients in a phase I > study conducted at NCI – and in brain and prostate tumors, the very tumors > in which Burzynski claims his best results.

Duh. Phase I trials do not test efficacy, phase II trials do that. Phase I trials demonstrate safety. And, DUH – please feel free to cite the research showing positive effects of phenylacetate in humans or animal brain or prostate cancer. I’d be delighted to read it. I asked you for this once before. > So I don’t see why it would be > surprising for A2S-1 to produce some remissions – but Scott can’t admit > that because he is wedded to an extreme position that Burzynski’s > treatment can’t possibly have any effect.

I’d be happy to admit it, Steve. Let’s see those remissions. Every claimed remission that I know of is now dead or was treated with conventional treatment. I’ve been asking to see these patients or solid evidence for several years now, and you and your ilk just keep accusing me of having an extreme position, as though asking for evidence that a cure has actually taken place before you charge $345 a day for drugs is an extreme position. And then you present some dopey case like that of Ryan’s which is really perfectly typical and then you claim it isn’t typical. I’d be fascinated to know of 5 Burzynski patients who have been in remission for 5 years or more. Feel free to name drop, Steve. sdb —

Response:

> I’m not a doctor nor a phd but I do have stack of faxes on my desk > about two inches thick, and many more attached to pleadings from > folks who the treatment is either helping or so believe it is > helping that they have caused their tumors to disappear, or go into > remission (I belive that to be the proper terminology).

Why are they faxing you? However, someone is mistaken here. There may be a few Burzynski patients who are presently taking his treatment that are in remission after following conventional care and are taking antineoplastons as a `preventitive’, but for the most part they are most definitely not in remission and the tumors have not disappeared. In fact, I believe that Burzynski’s 5 year cure rates are vanishingly close to 0%, if not precisely 0%. In any case, patient belief is not a very good basis for concluding that a treatment works – as I’ve mentioned before, Burzynski appeared with 3 `cured’ cancer patients on a T.V. talk show a few years ago, a tremendous publicity boost for his clinic since all 3 claimed they were cured. A followup later showed that 2 had died of their cancer and a 3rd was experiencing recurrence. I have yet to hear of a single Burzynski case that follows a course other than the one it was expected to follow without antineoplastons. > likely have. I have seen letters from doctors who are related to > these folks and who have had their oncologists and others examine > their relatives after starting the treatment and who say that the > MRI’s show the tumors to be going away or gone in many cases.

Wow – you are really well informed. 2 inches of patient faxes (that would be nearly 600 pages, btw), letters from doctors – MRI’s with magically disappearing tumors. Wow. Impressive… > regardless of your opinion of the doctors prior work habits in > gettings whatever regs approved (a matter not yet litigated – in > terms of his complianace with FDA and state rules) these folks could > in fact die if this medicine works. The issue that is pressing now > is their rights to continue the treatment… and the larger issue of > course is the rights of terminal patients to have access to whatever > drugs in testing that they so choose.

But they *will* be able to continue treatment. Burzynski will flee the country (according to news reports he has been moving his funds offshore for some time now) — no one really believes he will go to jail and fight it, why should he? He will probably open a clinic in the Bahamas or Mexico or someplace where he isn’t our worry and where he can’t drive up our insurance rates with his non-working drugs. sdb —

Response:

>OK, Danny…so your response is that no matter how unethical or >scientifically impoverished Burzynski’s therapy is, he should be able >to sell it to anyone who wants to buy it…no matter.

Absolutely! Because if he doesn’t have the right to sell it, then I (effectively) don’t have the right to BUY it. And it is my decision, no one elses, about what medical treatments I am to receive. If I want a medical treatment, and can pay for it, I have the absolute human right to select that treatment. No matter what you, the medical profession in general or the FDA (federal death agency) thinks about the treatment. Yes, people selling untested treatments are a source of fraud — but so are people selling swamp land as housing development. If you are subject to fraud of this nature, then you (or your heirs) can sue in civil court for redress. If that is made easy enough, then we don’t NEED criminal laws to "protect" (or is that KILL) us. If, on the other hand, I select a treatment with full disclosure of the available information and there is a problem, the provider can be reasonably protected against "greedy" lawsuits. >Let the marketplace determine what’s medicine and preserve >freedom of choice at all costs.

Who else is going to do it? The government? <snicker> We can’t trust THEM to spend money, much less make life and death decisions. Not to mention they have a vested interest in us dying early to minimize impact on social security costs. Which apparently played a major role in outlawing melation in the UK. Or, how about the established medical profession? But, of course THEY are the ones who have done the most to persecute other forms of medicine in the interest of eliminating "quacks". The AMA has lost several cases in the US Supreme Court because of their unjust persecution of chiropractors. And they continue to persecute alternative forms of medicine — even when they develop them and do the research. Consider heart bypass surgery. It is, as I understand it, a nearly useless operation — it doesn’t extend the patient’s life, it costs an incrediable amount of money and the only "relief" the patient gets is from cutting the nerves to the heart so they can’t feel the discomfort associated with their condition. This is a lot like going to Mexico and letting an Incan priest rip your heart out with an obsidean knife — except that some lame attempt is made to put it back and, of course, the most modern surgical tools (steel knifes) are used. There certainly isn’t any better reason that that the Icans had — after all, ripping out your heart MIGHT satisfy the volcano gods. That at least is much harder to prove false. It certainly won’t help your medical condition. This is one of the widest practiced operations around. And makes heart surgeons a heap of money. Does the FDA stop that? No, they consider it perfectly acceptable. What about alternatives? Such as chelation. It appears to work a high percentage of the time, costs very little, and is extremely safe. It has been performed on millions of patients with a very high success rate — by DOCTORS. But the AMA and the FDA would like nothing better than to get rid of it. So, who can you trust to make these decisions? I am not willing to let ANYONE other than myself have life and death veto power over my medical treatments. And I feel that this is a fundamental human right. Perhaps not observed as such by governments, but that does not change the ethical position. > Naturally, this presumes that buyers have enough medical > knowledge that they can engage in something resembling >"free choice."

If they don’t, then they are perfectly free to accept the advice of an allopath. Or any other medical professional they care to trust. >Frankly, I was looking to see if Dr Proctor had a _medical_ basis for >(apparently) supporting Burzynski’s cancer treatments, or whether, >like you, without knowing anything about it, he thinks Burzynski, or >anyone else who wants to go into the cancer business, should be >allowed to do so.

Again, like bypass surgery, the "conventional" medical profession has a VERY low cure rate for cancer. But, should they consider taking selenium, or COQ-10 or being chelated or Burzynski’s treatment then the AMA will move heaven and earth to prevent your getting access to the alternative treatment. Perhaps because they lose money. I am not saying that EVERY doctor, or even most, are driven by the need to make more money. As a matter of fact, I don’t know a doctor primarily driven by the need to make money — but on the other hand, if a person’s livelyhood is threatened they are bound to be more resistant to that which threatens. And look at the areas where the conventional treatment is both least effective and costs the most and that is where there is the most resistance to alternative treatments. There just MIGHT be a relationship! Michael Lee Finney

Response:

> I assume from your remarks, that you are one of the "doctor trade" who > is "absolutely appalled." What is the medical and pharmacological > basis upon which you (apparently) support Burzynski’s antineoplaston > cancer therapy? Or do you think that he should be allowed to sell his > cancer treatments for big-bucks (or even cheaply) if he can get away > with it…no matter how unethical, or scientifically impoverished his > work or thinking may be?

I’m not a doctor nor a phd but I do have stack of faxes on my desk about two inches thick, and many more attached to pleadings from folks who the treatment is either helping or so believe it is helping that they have caused their tumors to disappear, or go into remission (I belive that to be the proper terminology). These are folks who are very young and thus in my mind it makes me think it must work to some degree since the "positive thinking" heal thyself theories I have seen suggest that you have to have the mental fotitude and belief that you are better which a 3 year old would not likely have. I have seen letters from doctors who are related to these folks and who have had their oncologists and others examine their relatives after starting the treatment and who say that the MRI’s show the tumors to be going away or gone in many cases. regardless of your opinion of the doctors prior work habits in gettings whatever regs approved (a matter not yet litigated – in terms of his complianace with FDA and state rules) these folks could in fact die if this medicine works. The issue that is pressing now is their rights to continue the treatment… and the larger issue of course is the rights of terminal patients to have access to whatever drugs in testing that they so choose. BTW Isn’t there proposed legislation along these lines (experimental drug act???) in the house right now? I’d appreciate any info you may have on this. — William Henry

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > You are making yourself look rather silly by > criticizing Dr. Bryzinski’s treatment and comparing it > with the "cold fusion fiasco". "Cold fusion" > experiments are presently being replicated in > laboratories all over the world and they gain more > acceptance every day, except for a cadre of > establishment scientists in the United States, who are > probably jealous because they didn’t have anything to > do with the discovery. Many things change, but human > nature is still the same as it was during Galileo’s > time. > Although everyone now agrees that the term "fusion" > should not have been used to describe the phenomenon, > it is now the popular term used by the press and others > and will probably remain so for the foreseeable future. > The phenomenon involves the application of a voltage in > a vessel of water which contains certain metals > (different metals with different shapes have been used > in the successful experiments), where a substantially > greater amount of heat energy is released in comparison > with the energy required to generate the electrical > current through the apparatus. > The Wall St. Journal has recently written about these > successful experiments and some were featured on the > "Nightline" TV program on February 7. Stanley Pons and > associates are continuing with their experiments at a > laboratory in France financed by Toyota. There is a > scientist in Sarasota, Florida who has obtained a > patent for a device similar to Pon’s, except this one > uses a combination of metals in the form of beads. > Don’t forget about "cold fusion" because we are going > to hear a lot more about it in the next few years. > There are different variations such as the Paterson > cell (named after the Sarasota scientist), but they all > involve the same mysterious phenomena. The people > developing this technology will have to tolerate some > abuse from the "scientific establishment", but they > will succeed because there is no organization like the > FDA standing in their way. > Danny

Response:

> >>I assume from your remarks, that you are one of the "doctor trade" who >>is "absolutely appalled." What is the medical and pharmacological >>basis upon which you (apparently) support Burzynski’s antineoplaston >>cancer therapy? > Actually, I’m an MD PhD clinical pharmacologisttoxicologist with > a lot of publications in the area of cancer therapy ( do a medline > using my name as a keyword if you like ). Trained at MD Anderson, > arguably the worlds foremost cancer center ( I’m a Texan and got to > brag ). I also have some patents in this area. FWIW, I’ve been > following Dr. B’s work for some years and think there is something > there. If ya wanna get into a prick-length contest— What are your > credentials to say there is not ?

I too am interested in an answer to Badanes question: I would love to know the medical and pharmacological basis for your support of Burzynski – the political one seems clear enough. At present, it would seem that Burzynski’s antineoplastons provide a precise medical parallel to the cold fusion fiasco in physics. Presumably you have read Dr. Greens critique in JAMA and can respond to it? I would suggest that as a starting point. Regards, sdb —

Response:

writes: writes: > >>I assume from your remarks, that you are one of the "doctor trade"

who is "absolutely appalled." What is the medical and pharmacological > >>basis upon which you (apparently) support Burzynski’s

antineoplaston cancer therapy? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Actually, I’m an MD PhD clinical pharmacologisttoxicologist with > a lot of publications in the area of cancer therapy ( do a medline > using my name as a keyword if you like ). Trained at MD Anderson, > arguably the worlds foremost cancer center ( I’m a Texan and got to > brag ). I also have some patents in this area. FWIW, I’ve been > following Dr. B’s work for some years and think there is something > there. If ya wanna get into a prick-length contest— What are your > credentials to say there is not ? >I too am interested in an answer to Badanes question: I would love to >know the medical and pharmacological basis for your support of >Burzynski – the political one seems clear enough. At present, it would >seem that Burzynski’s antineoplastons provide a precise medical >parallel to the cold fusion fiasco in physics. >Presumably you have read Dr. Greens critique in JAMA and can respond >to it? I would suggest that as a starting point. >Regards, >sdb >–

SDB, You are making yourself look rather silly by criticizing Dr. Bryzinski’s treatment and comparing it with the "cold fusion fiasco". "Cold fusion" experiments are presently being replicated in laboratories all over the world and they gain more acceptance every day, except for a cadre of establishment scientists in the United States, who are probably jealous because they didn’t have anything to do with the discovery. Many things change, but human nature is still the same as it was during Galileo’s time. Although everyone now agrees that the term "fusion" should not have been used to describe the phenomenon, it is now the popular term used by the press and others and will probably remain so for the foreseeable future. The phenomenon involves the application of a voltage in a vessel of water which contains certain metals (different metals with different shapes have been used in the successful experiments), where a substantially greater amount of heat energy is released in comparison with the energy required to generate the electrical current through the apparatus. The Wall St. Journal has recently written about these successful experiments and some were featured on the "Nightline" TV program on February 7. Stanley Pons and associates are continuing with their experiments at a laboratory in France financed by Toyota. There is a scientist in Sarasota, Florida who has obtained a patent for a device similar to Pon’s, except this one uses a combination of metals in the form of beads. Don’t forget about "cold fusion" because we are going to hear a lot more about it in the next few years. There are different variations such as the Paterson cell (named after the Sarasota scientist), but they all involve the same mysterious phenomena. The people developing this technology will have to tolerate some abuse from the "scientific establishment", but they will succeed because there is no organization like the FDA standing in their way. Danny

Response:

John Badanes to Dr Proctor: :I assume from your remarks, that you are one of the "doctor trade" :who is "absolutely appalled." What is the medical and :pharmacological basis upon which you (apparently) support :Burzynski’s antineoplaston cancer therapy? Or do you think that he :should be allowed to sell his cancer treatments for big-bucks (or :even cheaply) if he can get away with it…no matter how :unethical, or scientifically impoverished his work or thinking may :be? Danny Cox’s response: >The previous post should be distrubing to anyone who participates >in this newsgroup and is concerned with personal freedom. What is >wrong with the people who have cancer being allowed to make >decisions concerning the treatment they receive? I really don’t >know how well Dr. Burzynski’s treatments work, but I know that >conventional cancer treatments are not very successful, and I would >want to have the right to receive Dr. Burzynski’s treatment if I >chose to do so. OK, Danny…so your response is that no matter how unethical or scientifically impoverished Burzynski’s therapy is, he should be able to sell it to anyone who wants to buy it…no matter. For you, it’s not important that a medical treatment have any merit beyond its ‘claims’ and ‘availability.’ Of course you’d LIKE it to be effective (and all that), but not even knowing anything about Burzynski’s cancer treatments, you are in favor of his being allowed to market them. That’s one vote for the "Right" to sell quack cures IF you can find a buyer. Let the marketplace determine what’s medicine and preserve freedom of choice at all costs. Naturally, this presumes that buyers have enough medical knowledge that they can engage in something resembling "free choice." Frankly, I was looking to see if Dr Proctor had a _medical_ basis for (apparently) supporting Burzynski’s cancer treatments, or whether, like you, without knowing anything about it, he thinks Burzynski, or anyone else who wants to go into the cancer business, should be allowed to do so. So I’m still curious to hear from Dr Dr Proctor on the medical merits of Burzynski’s therapy, if indeed he does feel they have any. JB.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Badanes) writes: > Dr Dr Peter Peter H. Proctor: > >Actually, the main problem is plain old stupidity and > >pigheadedness, not some mythical global conspiracy. You give > >us docs way too much credit. The people who are trying to screw > >Dr. B are a bunch of ambitious local Federal Attorneys who don’t > >know any better and believe what they are told by a few local > >docs. They are mis-using laws passed by a bunch of pandering > >polititians in your congress to "protect" us. Many in the > >doctor trade are absolutely appalled. >I assume from your remarks, that you are one of the "doctor trade" who >is "absolutely appalled." What is the medical and pharmacological >basis upon which you (apparently) support Burzynski’s antineoplaston >cancer therapy? Or do you think that he should be allowed to sell his >cancer treatments for big-bucks (or even cheaply) if he can get away >with it…no matter how unethical, or scientifically impoverished his >work or thinking may be? >JB.

The previous post should be distrubing to anyone who participates in this newsgroup and is concerned with personal freedom. What is wrong with the people who have cancer being allowed to make decisions concerning the treatment they receive? I really don’t know how well Dr. Burzynski’s treatments work, but I know that conventional cancer treatments are not very successful, and I would want to have the right to receive Dr. Burzynski’s treatment if I chose to do so. Danny

Response:

Dr Dr Peter Peter H. Proctor: >Actually, the main problem is plain old stupidity and >pigheadedness, not some mythical global conspiracy. You give >us docs way too much credit. The people who are trying to screw >Dr. B are a bunch of ambitious local Federal Attorneys who don’t >know any better and believe what they are told by a few local >docs. They are mis-using laws passed by a bunch of pandering >polititians in your congress to "protect" us. Many in the >doctor trade are absolutely appalled. I assume from your remarks, that you are one of the "doctor trade" who is "absolutely appalled." What is the medical and pharmacological basis upon which you (apparently) support Burzynski’s antineoplaston cancer therapy? Or do you think that he should be allowed to sell his cancer treatments for big-bucks (or even cheaply) if he can get away with it…no matter how unethical, or scientifically impoverished his work or thinking may be? JB.

Response: