Civil War
Home Up The Twisted Golden Rule

1 - Current Status 2 - Medical Conspiracy 3 - Burzynski 4 - Royal Rife 45 - Morris Fishbein 6 - Medical Mysteries 7 - Civil War 8 - Twisted Golden Rule 9 - Corruption
   

Cancer Diaries

Part Seven: Medical Civil War

Written by Rick Archer
September 2013


I can prove anything by statistics except the truth.
-
George Canning

The progress of science is strewn, like an ancient desert trail, with the bleached skeletons of discarded theories which once seemed to possess eternal life - Arthur Koestler

THE MEDICAL CIVIL WAR

 

In the previous chapter, Dr. Oz referred to a Medical Civil War

"Modern medicine is a “Civil War” waged between conventional physicians and those who are open to alternative cures for maladies ranging from anxiety to cancer..."

One needs to look no further than the picture on the right. 

That picture, my friends, is the face of the Medical Civil War.  That is Doctor versus Doctor, plain and simple.

And it is a war.  It is a war of competing medical technologies.  Except we aren't talking Beta versus VHS or the Electric Car versus the Gas Guzzler here.  We are talking about human lives.  The FDA guards the Watchtower and Burzynski is trying to muscle his way in.  Someone has to stop him.  The situation is so desperate, the FDA is willing to spend...

60 MILLION DOLLARS

I previously wrote about Burzynski' struggles in Chapter Three.

Out of curiosity, do you even remember what Burzynski's $60 Million 1997 Grand Jury Trial was about? 

I bet you don't remember. 

Was it started by complaints from disgruntled patients or survivors of the dead who were angry at Burzynski?  No.

Was it started by evidence that Burzynski's treatment was physically harmful to the patients?  No.

Was it started by evidence that Burzynski's treatment was ineffective?  NoIn fact, the prosecution even admitted there was value to the treatment.

The U.S. Government spent $60 million dollars trying to convict Burzynski of allowing his antineoplaston treatment to cross state lines.  Have you ever heard of anything more ridiculous?

Burzynski won because he was always careful not to ship it out of state.  This forced Burzynski's patients to come to Houston from out of state.  These patients then took the treatment home with them of their own volition, thereby crossing the State Line.

One has to ask what difference would it make if Burzynski did ship it?  What kind of stupid game is this?  For crying out loud, the man is trying to save people's lives.

So what is the real reason our Government would spend a King's Fortune of your tax dollars and my tax dollars to prosecute a man for any reason as pathetic as this?

The answer is simple, my friends.  Cancer is big business. 

Cancer is so important, people will stop at nothing to keep the present system intact.

The Crime: Burzynski was accused of illegally transporting
his life-saving treatment across State Lines. 

Cancer isn't just big, it's real big. 

Cancer has become "too big to fail". 

To these people, spending $60 MILLION to protect a $200 BILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY makes perfect economic sense.


Why Won't the Medical Community Back Burzynski's
Work?

 

As one can gather, I personally think Burzynski is on to something.  His work shows great promise.  However I don't think he is quite there yet.

I firmly believe if the constant harassment would be lifted, Burzynski would make better progress. 

It would also be correct if Burzynski's work could be evaluated fairly. 

In the Chapter Three article, we saw a cancer researcher named Li-Chuan Chen come forward to lend credence to the allegations that previous testing of Burzynski's work by the NIH (National Institute of Health) in 1995 had been deliberately sabotaged.

(click here to review this claim in Chapter Three)

There were also serious allegations of patent infringement.

Dr. Chen made it clear that the government's move to patent Burzynski's treatment behind his back was clearly an illegal attempt to steal his life's work.

(click here to review this claim in Chapter Three)


Meanwhile, my critics have begun to lose respect for me thanks to my wacko conspiracy theories.

"With all due respect, Rick, my faith in you having a completely open mind is ebbing.  The conspiracy angle you speak of is ludicrous considering the number of people and governments that would have to be involved. Once you've made up your mind with the conspiracy angle, presenting the other side with reasonable explanations runs into a brick wall."

$60 Million Dollar Witch Hunt.  Sabotaged test trials.  Blatant patent infringement.

How long does the list have to grow before people start to "get it"?

Yes, it is true.  My mind is made up on the Conspiracy Angle.  Someone is clearly out to get Burzynski.

My money is on the pharmaceutical industry who stands to lose billions if Burzynski's treatment puts them out of business.  The entity that stands to lose the most is always the most likely suspect.

And I understand that hospitals stand to lose money. Those hospitals most cost a fortune to build and to maintain.  Unfortunately for them, Burzynski's patients actually take their medicine home with them... they walk around with a medical pouch that gently seeps ANP serum into their bloodstream on a daily basis.  Hospitals are certainly vulnerable if this tactic becomes wide-spread. 

However, there is one question I have not been able to answer to my own satisfaction is Burzynski's obvious lack of support in the Medical Community.  "Why doesn't the Medical Community support Burzynski?"

In other words, why don't doctors and researchers investigate Burzynski more closely and come to the same conclusions I have made based on the documentaries?

This question is very troubling to me.  Burzynski's critics are loud and vociferous.  They claim that he is a fraud and a charlatan at every turn.

Wikipedia shows complete contempt for Burzynski.  In fact, I have noticed that sometime within the past three months that I have been writing my Cancer Diaries, Wikipedia's language has changed to become even more dismissive.  (Original Wikipedia Profile)

The Burzynski Clinic is a clinic in Texas, United States founded in 1976 and offering unproven cancer treatment. The clinic is best known for the controversy surrounding its "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 much criticism due to the way its unproven antineoplaston therapy is promoted, the costs for cancer sufferers participating in "trials" of antineoplastons, significant problems with the way these trials are run, legal cases brought as a result of the sale of the therapy without board approval, and for other causes.

Burzynski immigrated to the United States in 1970 working at Baylor College until 1977, when he established the Burzynski Research Laboratory, where he administered antineoplaston therapy, initially to 21 patients then more widely as "experimental" treatment, immediately opening himself up to "charges of unethical conduct and to the suspicion he had become a merchant of false hope".

Having effectively exiled himself from mainstream medicine, Burzynski pursued a course of promoting his offerings using publicity, and "aggressively [seeking] out ... terminally ill cancer patients", leading to several instances of media controversy.

In 2013, Burzynski was awarded the James Randi Educational Foundation's Pigasus Award, which is bestowed each April Fool's Day on frauds.


That strange comment about the "Pigasus Award" is recent.  Considering Wikipedia claims to be "scholarly", that undignified statement is so uncalled for that it actually helps make my point that Burzynski has enemies within the medical community.  That is obvious.

Now the question is 'why'.  Why is Burzynski detested by so many?

The first and second Burzynski documentaries made it clear (at least to me) that Burzynski is well on his way to curing cancer.  If so, then why does he have so much opposition not just from the Conspiracy manipulators at the top, but the vast Medical Community as well? 

Why would these medical people refuse to back a man who appears to be on the road to curing cancer?  Why would they let Burzynski hang in the air while the FDA and the NIH continue to crucify this guy?

There are two obvious possibilities.

First, Burzynski is a threat to put people out of business.  He definitely on to something and the entrenched interests are pulling a Morris Fishbein attempt to suppress his technology long enough that they can steal it, duplicate it, or catch up to him.  Given the desperation of methods such as the 60 Million Dollar Trial, that could very well be the answer.

However, there is also a much less pleasant possibility.  Maybe Burzynski's cure is nowhere near as effective as he claims it to be.  Maybe he really is a charlatan.  Perhaps people in the medical field wish to stop Burzynski because they don't trust him or his work.  They think he is either a fraud or he is misguided. 

Of course it is this second possibility that troubles me.  For me to be right, these people have to be wrong.  Only one problem - they know more about medicine than I do.  Considering my personal lack of medical knowledge, I am at a serious disadvantage here.  That gives me pause for thought.  Am I backing the wrong horse? 

 
   

The Ultimate Question: Who is Right and who is Wrong?

One would assume that the Medical Community with all its vast knowledge knows exactly what it is doing.  However, in my previous article on "Medical Mysteries", I made it perfectly clear that medicine gets it wrong from time to time.

In particular, history has shown doctors have a bad habit of "getting it wrong" whenever someone's pocketbook is affected.

  •  In case one has forgotten, something as important as a cure for Smallpox was postponed for four years in part by the variolators.
     
  •  In case one has forgotten, there was an anecdote in the Morris Fishbein chapter how Royal Rife's cure for chronic colitis was suppressed because the doctors were angry that their cash-cow patients were being cured.
     
  •  In case one has forgotten, Barry Marshall, the man who cured ulcers, was convinced his work was ignored for fourteen years because too many people were making too much money to bother paying attention to him.

So yes, I think we can all suspect that the closed-minded attitude prevalent in the Medical Community towards Burzynski could have an economic motive behind it.  There is currently a heavy propaganda campaign being waged against Burzynski on the Internet.  The Wikipedia listing cited above is an obvious example. While the doctors argue that Burzynski's treatment is false, dangerous, and ineffective, anybody with a brain can see these doctors' arguments could just as easily be motivated by fear of the competition. 

Still, in the end, if we can put the propaganda wars aside, Burzynski still has to meet the ultimate medical challenge. 

Can Burzynski prove his treatment works?
 

   

The Great Debate - Does Burzynski's Treatment Work?


FORWARD

Although it took some prodding, I finally got a Hopkins-trained cancer researcher to explain why Mainstream Medicine is so totally opposed to Burzynski. 

I think for the following debate to make any sense, the reader needs to understand that Dr. Research, as I will refer to him, was very reluctant to share this information.

I do not know why he resisted participating, but I will say he was deeply concerned that I would publish his answers.  For the record, he repeatedly asked me not to. 

I am what is known as a "whistleblower".  I write these articles because I believe the truth about Burzynski is being suppressed.  However, in a sense, Dr. Research is also a whistleblower.  He has attempted to explain where I am wrong in my thinking. 

Despite his concern, I decided on an issue as important as the safety and effectiveness of Burzynski's treatment, I think the public has the right to ALL INFORMATION both pro and con.  This explains why I have chosen to publish his arguments.


About Dr. Research and his work

Although Dr. Research and I disagree, it is not my desire to "discredit" Dr. Research.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

I admire what this Maryland-based researcher does. From what I have been told, Dr. Research toils long hours in near-total privacy creating tumors in mice and looking for ways to cure those tumors.  This is hardly what most of us would consider pleasant work. 

However, I am glad we have people like Dr. Research willing to take on this valuable task.  He is society's warrior in the fight against this dread disease.  Dr. Research is not only exploring the origins of disease, but he is constantly looking for vulnerabilities that can be exploited to 'cure cancer'. 

Although progress in curing cancer has been painfully slow, especially when compared to the dramatic speed with which polio was cured, there have been several excellent recent breakthroughs in the fight against cancer.

One development is the new-found ability to sequence genomes.  This means the entire genome of a tumor profile can be processed in a few hours. 

The second development is the advance of computers. Science now has the ability to analyze tumor profile data through very sophisticated computational structures and artificial intelligence.  Computing has become not just faster, but much more sophisticated.  Science has reached a third generation artificial intelligence where computers can think in a contextual way. Today's computers will help doctors make treatment decisions based on vast amounts of information.

These advances suggest the dawn of targeted gene therapy as a way to treat malignancy. Gene therapy involves the engineering of the body's own tumor-fighting cells to specifically target malignant ones.  We could be on the verge of a new era in cancer treatment: Genetically modifying a patient's own immune defense cells to fight tumors.  From what I gather, MD Anderson is about to open a new clinic that will put these cutting-edge advances to good use.   

Another advance is stem cell research.  Still in its infancy, medical researchers anticipate that adult and embryonic stem cells will soon be able to treat cancer by replacing diseased tissues with healthy tissues.  Today a number of stem-cell therapies exist, but most are at experimental stages and very costly.

I wish to make it clear that at no time have I ever doubted the sincerity and integrity of most mainstream cancer research.  Yes, I have reported unethical behavior in the 1977 testing of laetrile at Sloan-Kettering and the 1995 testing of Antineoplastons at the NIH, but by and large I believe that people like Dr. Research are in the cancer cure game for the right reasons.

While I do believe there exist unconscionable, amoral men who manipulate developments in the cancer industry to suit their own interests, I know there are countless well-meaning doctors and researchers dedicated to finding a cure for cancer. 

I fully applaud these modern developments in the War against cancer.

So what is my beef? 

I don't understand why we can't have two chariots in the race.

If a simple herbal tea like Essiac could actually cure breast cancer like they said it could, it is a crime against humanity to deny access to cures like this. 

My Cancer Diaries have meant to show there have already been several promising cures for cancer destroyed by shadowy men.  I want to make sure the same thing doesn't happen to Dr. B.

The Origin of the Debate

Before the Great Debate begins, let's review the letters that preceded it.

Dr. Research:

Rick, I grow weary of having you repeatedly malign the motives of "the medical establishment" and the intelligence and the commitment to the health of their patients of physicians who do not agree with your point of view.
 

Rick Archer:

Dr. Research, I have long considered you to be a trusted advisor. Therefore to see you capriciously brush me off over an academic matter seems highly out of character for you. Yes, you are correct… I am guilty of over-generalizing when I use the term "medical establishment". But I clearly pointed out on several occasions that my indictment is directed at shadowy executives in the NIH, FDA, and pharmaceutical drug companies.

My mistake pales in comparison to the doctors at Memorial Sloan Kettering who deliberately falsified the results of Laetrile tests and lied about their actions to the American public in the Seventies. Or the researchers at the NIH who deliberately sabotaged Burzynski's trials in the early Nineties and filed copycat patents in a blatant attempt to hijack Burzynski's work.

I did not believe Mr. Skeptical when this issue came up a year ago. I do now because I have done my homework.

My investigation in no way minimizes what you do for a living. I for one am grateful for all medical research and I completely support your personal efforts. But we aren't going to get very far if science has to be compromised for profits.

For example, I remember how you stated you wished someone would submit their alternative cures to a scientifically monitored double blind test. That would be great if we could just count on people not to rig the tests. The testimony of Ralph Moss and Dr. Li-Chaun Chen made it clear there is corruption at work in the research community.

What a shame it is that certain members of the research community cannot be trusted. I have investigated two promising cures - Laetrile and Antineoplaston - where there is strong evidence that researchers deliberately sabotaged results. When I see so-called "healers" deliberately sabotage not just one, but an entire series of legitimate holistic cures in order to protect the cancer cash cow, I draw the line at these unethical and immoral actions.

For the record, I am both intelligent and I am honest. When I write a story that strongly suggests there are people in the medical community that engage in behavior I consider fraudulent and criminal, I would expect someone with an open mind would investigate my claim rather than dismiss me willy nilly.

But I am sure it is much easier for you to simply turn a blind eye like everyone else… which demonstrates yet again how these people continue to get away with what they do.

 

Dr. Research:

Starting with your previous posts, coupled with your unnecessarily condescending/caustic response to my PRIVATE e-mail to you with the transparent purpose of provoking an argument, I think it best to exclude me from any future of your "investigative" reports.


Rick Archer:

Dr. Research, I have the highest regard for your integrity. I admire the work you do.  I completely agree that medical research to find a cure for cancer is valuable. 

But you have chosen to take my heart-felt quest on a personal level and pretty much ignored what I had to say in the process.

There is something very sick in the cancer industry. The word is 'corruption'.

Avoiding the truth of course is what everyone else does as well, so join the crowd.

By the way, there is no such thing as a Private email. Not in this world anyway.

I am not your enemy.  I sincerely hope that people like you working within the 'System' will come up with a cure for cancer. I mean that.  For that matter, I hope you are the one to find the cure for cancer.  I know very well that you are working hard towards a noble cause and I applaud your efforts. I donate money to mainstream cancer research with this object in mind and I have years of checks to prove it.

So if I do not oppose your work, then what is the point of my articles?

All I want is one simple thing - I want the thugs in the 'Medical Establishment' to simply mind their own business.

Lay off the strong-arm tactics and fight fair. Quit trying to steal patents and quit spending $60 million dollars in this senseless jihad to stop Burzynski.

Is it asking too much to let two chariots enter the race without one side cheating at every turn?


Furthermore,
in a perfect world it should not matter who the "winner" is.  The goal should be to let everyone try to find a cure for cancer.  If someone succeeds, then the entire human race wins.  That is the way I see it. 

Let Burzynski go about his business without the constant harassment.  If the man is wrong, then let his failed results speak for themselves. Like herbal tea and apricot seeds, his cure isn't 'hurting' anyone, so leave him to do his research in peace.

Is that too much to ask?

Call off the attack dogs.


Dr. Research:

Rick, you couldn't be more wrong on some points (and borderline insulting).

Yes, insulting, especially considering our respective backgrounds in the field.

Once you've made up your mind with the conspiracy angle, presenting the other side with reasonable explanations runs into a brick wall.

But at the risk of being insulting, Rick, you don't know what you don't know. And, there is more at stake here than switching milk brands.  I have underlined the most disturbing paragraph you've written.

"Let Burzynski go about his business without the constant harassment. If the man is wrong, then let his failed results speak for themselves. Like herbal tea and apricot seeds, his cure isn't 'hurting' anyone, so leave him to do his research in peace."

And I don't have the time to deal with this; I have mouse tumors to shrink.
 

Rick Archer:

So, now that you have taken the risk of insulting me - what is it that I don't know that is so important?  I have asked you three times to tell me what you know about Burzynski.  Or were you just bluffing? 
 

Dr. Research:

"Or were you just bluffing?"

That is the last straw.  You have called me a liar. I spent the last 45 minutes on my almost-sent message, carefully addressing your concerns, to be sent soon, revealing the current research and views on Burzynski's cure (some early results actually positive regarding his HDAC inhibitor). But your ad hominem attack just received, calling me a liar, has me move on to better ways to spend my time, a.k.a. curing cancer and having a life. I hope and pray your articles do not cost lives. Good riddance, for now.

Rick Archer:

No one called you a liar. You said that there were things I didn't know. I asked what it was three times and three times you didn't deliver.

Considering you were attempting to be a stand up guy, that doesn't exactly make your case, now does it?

And then you lost your temper.

The correct thing to do… and I mean this… is to quit playing games and tell me what it is you think I need to know.

Are you oblivious to the purpose of these articles?

For the record, these cancer diaries are directed at the fact that my research strongly suggests certain individuals at the top of the cancer industry food chain are making so much money they are willing to sabotage legitimate and far less expensive natural treatments. In the rough and tumble world of competition, I suppose there are all sorts of dirty tricks played. But this isn't betamax versus VHS or Detroit versus electric car.

In the cancer industry, people are dying right and left. No one wants to believe innocent lives have been sacrificed to give your drug-based technology an edge over its competitors.

But that is the way it looks to me. The problem is that your technology has not come through yet.

Mainstream Medicine has been shall we say 'slow' to beat this cancer problem. It clings to an obsolete treatment mode - chemo radiation surgery - that more and more people agree simply makes a patient's last moments on earth painful and pathetic while failing to significantly prolong lives.

I understand that the problem is complex and I was infinitely more patient back in the days before I realized that several possible cures been smashed to smithereens by cancer industry goons. Now I am appalled and ready to share my disgust with the world.

Burzynski is either going to win a Nobel Prize for medicine someday or end up completely discredited. I assume you expect the latter outcome.  But I would not dismiss him so quickly.  Burzynski might end up proving you wrong.

IF it is true that any one out of laetrile, essiac, gerson, rife, hoxsey, burzynski ET AL had the ability to cure cancer AND they were eliminated so cancer industry fat cats could increase their obscene profits, then the moral decay at the center of the cancer industry just grows and grows and grows… just like the cancer they are unable to cure.

As it appears to me, Burzynski is the latest in a long line of alternative cancer fighters to have possibly found a cure for cancer. What makes him much different from the rest is that he started in the same place you did - the cancer research lab.

Had he stayed within the system, we might have our cure by now. But that's another story. As it stands, rather than encourage the man they once championed, the cancer industry fat cats have used their government influence to spend $60 million in one jury trial and $200 million dollars overall to stop him over a thirty year span.

Meanwhile, a long line of desperate people are trying to go to his clinic for the Treatment of Last Hope. There is only one problem. The FDA has refused to let anyone new receive the treatment. People are climbing the wall with anxiety. They think they are going to die without this treatment.

This is a simple example from the Team Hannah website.  

My name is Cornelia Doros and I was diagnosed in 2003 with Sclerosing Epitheloid Fibrosarcoma and had 5 surgeries, one radiotherapy and one cyberknife surgery.

As surgery is no more an option for me I went as well to Burzynski clinic this year in February 2013.

They said the FDA has suspended use of antineoplastons.

I am desperate to find your way or any other way to get the treatment with antineoplastons. Please contact me on the phone or email. Thank you.   (source)

I have two reactions to this pitiful email.

My first reaction is further disgust at the FDA. This woman is a real human being and she is scared of dying. The punitive actions of the FDA towards Burzynski are ABSOLUTELY UNCONSCIONABLE...

...unless…

…. Unless the FDA actually knows something about Burzynski that is dangerous for the American public… in which case the FDA is doing their duty to protect us.

But since the FDA doesn't bother to explain what they are protecting us from and since the FDA has about as much credibility as a ham sandwich ever since the Burzynski Grand Jury monkey trials back in the Nineties, I doubt the FDA has a legitimate reason to suspend Burzynski's treatment other than as a stall tactic.

As it appears to me, the FDA is behaving just as it always does. By delaying the ANP treatment, the FDA gives Medical Establishment cancer researchers - people just like you - precious more time to come up with your own cure.

I am about to tell the world yet again how disgusted I am with FDA behavior.  Here we go again - two chariots and one side cheats at every turn.

However, I have delayed my story so far for four days because you said THERE IS SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW.

Based on my respect for your position as a cancer researcher, I took your word for it and postponed publication.

I assumed you were about to give me difficult-to-find evidence that Burzynski is a FALSE HOPE and a dangerous one at that. If that's the case, then yes, I will wait.

So what exactly is my agenda here? I have one single goal. I want to get it right. I don't want to point the arrow at Burzynski unless he is the real deal. No point in setting desperate people up like that. Unlike certain people in your industry, I have a fully-functioning conscience.

You have stated loud and clear that you know something important. Meanwhile desperate people are dying.

But now, just because you insist I did not show you proper respect, you are going to take your precious secret and hide it from the world.  Your attitude is basically "Rick called me a liar, so fuck 'em, let them die."

Now how mature is that?

I assume you are familiar with the quote "evil flourishes when good men do nothing".  The steady advance of Hitler through 1930s Germany is typically listed as the most alarming example of this 'see no evil, turn your back' attitude.

I am writing this article based on that quote. I contend there is GREAT EVIL within your industry and this fact is being kept hidden from the American people. Someone has to do something.

That said, I would never deliberately mislead Americans to check out Burzynski if I knew something harmful about the man. As it stands, I have not yet run across that kind of information… but I concede that I am not nearly in a position to be CERTAIN.

So I will ask you one more time… what do you know that I need to know?

If Burzynski is a threat to the American people AND you possess information that can demonstrate this, you have a moral obligation to share that material.

If you don't, and Burzynski continues to harm helpless patients, then that karma goes on you, not me.
 

(Rick Archer's Note:  To the credit of Dr. Research, he did indeed send me information.  We will now start the debate based on the response of Dr. Research.)

The Burzynski Debate Begins


Dr. Research:

You certainly won't have to go as far as you and Burzynski had to go; to find a lone anesthesiologist (yes, anesthesiologist, not cancer researcher) in Japan. A PubMed search (listing all published findings by a researcher) with Hideaki Tsuda shows 4 articles written by him. One cell line model tested, and one mouse model, which proves nothing compared to humans. One paper looking at one patient (not stastistically relevant), and one study with ten patients, not curing the cancer, but mildly prolonging death (not unusual for applying an HDAC inhibitor with some patients).

One researcher among the tens of thousands, and a few emotional testimonies by patients in a movie he bankrolled, is what you are betting the farm on??

PLEASE tell me you have more than that.
 

Rebuttal:

Note: ANP = AntiNeoPlastons

Many medical scientists dismiss all cases of people cured using ANP as being merely "anecdotal".  Their most common argument is there is no hard evidence.  (see top picture at right)

The fact that Burzynski has a growing legion of cancer survivors walking around means nothing to them.  Big deal. The scientists exclaim, "anecdotal anecdotal anecdotal!"

Like his fellow scientists, Dr. Research seems to dismiss the cancer survivors seen in the two Burzynski documentaries.

"plus a few emotional testimonies by patients in a movie he bankrolled"

Hmm.  Try explaining the intelligence of that reasoning to the people who are walking, breathing "anecdotal" proof that ANP treatment saved their lives.

"One researcher among the tens of thousands..."

Doctors and researchers continually complain about the absence of any randomized controlled clinical trials. (see lower picture).

They ask why no "peer review" studies are published.  Why is there only one researcher besides Burzynski as Dr. Research pointed out?  And why does this lone man have to be as far away as Japan?  Where is the valuable American research?

Well, for one thing, anyone who dares do research on the pariah Burzynski could easily see their career ruined. 

Once they (doctors) receive their license, they must learn to walk a very fine line. Even investigating unapproved therapies can cause them trouble. Recommending them will mean peer ridicule, being ostracized by the medical community and probably losing their medical license. They have an enormous incentive to maintain the status quo, namely, their large paycheck, emotional belief system, personnel/professional credibility and career advancement.   (Gavin Phillips, article)

So the question becomes, "Why haven't any randomized trials been published?"

My guess is that Gavin Phillips is right.  No one researches Burzynski because it invites almost certain career jeopardy.  That would explain why the only research found exists in a more "open minded" research climate such as Japan

Meanwhile, the second documentary suggested if the journals would just let Burzynski publish his own material, then he wouldn't be quite so much a mystery. In Chapter Three, I pointed out that Dr. Oz was reluctant to invite Burzynski on his show because there was so little information out there.

"Dr. Oz implied that he had little insight into what Burzynski was doing because there wasn't much medical information about Burzynski being published."

Burzynski has indeed published scientific articles on his work in the past.  Unfortunately, Burzynski continues to run into a serious roadblock - no one wants to publish his ongoing work.

This is an old tactic. In Chapter Five, I pointed out how Morris Fishbein made sure no one published Royal Rife.  The one man who did publish got a bullet through his windshield.


Conclusion: The results of this study compared favorably with the responses of patients treated with radiation therapy and chemotherapy. The study continues with accrual of additional patients.
  (2003, source)

The second Burzynski documentary offered compelling evidence that a major reason there is not more Burzynski literature for review is due to a deliberate suppression of his work.

According to the documentary, in November 2012, Burzynski submitted a report of survival stories ranging from 8 years to 16 years from deadly Glioblastomas, brain cancer.

Ordinarily a Glioblastoma is a rapid death sentence...  44 to 74 weeks according to the National Cancer Institute (see picture).

Let's see, 74 weeks adds up to 1 year and 3 months.

And here Burzynski was trying to submit a report that he was able to successfully treat gliomas to the extent that he had patients who were still alive eight to sixteen years later. 

There is a big difference between 74 weeks and 16 years.  One would assume a cancer researcher dedicated to prolonging lives and finding cures would be curious about a report like this.  

But these researchers will never read about it.  Why not? 

As this email exchange shows, the Lancet Oncology Peer Review Team rejected Burzynski's 2012 submission just two hours after it was submitted.

Two hours.  That was kind of fast.  Their reason for dismissal? 

They decided the message that ANP can cure fatal gliomas should be reported elsewhere. 

What did they have in mind?  The funny papers?  Dear Abby?

This kind of thinking is highly reminiscent of the story of Dr. Edward Jenner, the man who cured smallpox. 

Smallpox was the most feared disease on earth. In 1796, Dr. Jenner discovered he could cure smallpox by vaccinating people with cowpox, a far less virulent form of the disease.  

When Dr. Jenner submitted his report to the Royal Society, they simply rejected it.  They refused to publish his findings. In fact, it took the Royal Society four years to finally get around to testing Jenner's work.  Imagine their surprise when it worked.

That kind of attitude makes you want to scratch your head.

As it turned out, Jenner's work was being held up in part by variolators, practitioners of a crude and sometimes fatal form of vaccination.  These variolators were upset that their business would dry up if Jenner's work proved true. ( read more )

But that was way way back in the Dark Ages.  Surely everyone is more open minded now. Surely in these modern times, a reputable source like the Lancet would be completely above the political fray and committed to publishing potential cures.

My favorite part is just how polite the language is.  Not only do they refer to "Dear Dr. Burzynski", they encourage him to try try again soon!! 

"and hope it does not deter you from considering us again in the future!"

I call that 'Killing you softly with kindness'.

   

Dr. Hideaki Tsuda

"One researcher among the tens of thousands"

"to find a lone anesthesiologist (yes, anesthesiologist, not cancer researcher) in Japan."

Dr. Research is referring to Dr. Hideaki Tsuda of Kurume Medical University in Japan.  Dr. Tsuda is a former colleague of Burzynski at Baylor Research in Houston back in the Seventies. He has studied antineoplastons for 27 years. 

Dr. Tsuda was interviewed in the second Burzynski documentary about his work.  This is what Dr. Tsuda said:

Science must be born in doubt.  An anecdotal event produces the scientific mind. "Anecdotal" is very important, but if you report anecdotal, anecdotal, anecdotal, it doesn't do anything good, its not persuasive, it's not convincing.

That is why we did the randomized study.

The motivation - why we started this research on ANP for the last 27 years.

We did not believe Dr. Burzynski blindly. We wanted to see and test very much the effects of ANP with our own eyes and in our own ways.

PHASE ONE

We did the Phase One studies first. Phase One establishes safety. We wanted to know how much dosage the patient could tolerate.

We used ANP A10 injection formula and AS2-1 oral formula with 43 patients.

About 50% of these patients were responding to this combination therapy with ANP A10 injection formula and AS2-1.

We published the results from this Phase One Clinical study in 1995 (see picture).

Since we found a better response in cancer of the liver
, we decided to concentrate our studies on liver cancer studies.

 

PHASE TWO

We then moved our research to Phase Two clinical trials. Phase Two establishes efficacy (effectiveness).

We found that ANP could obviously prolong the disease free interval and overall survival rate.

In this Phase Two study we subjected the liver metastasis from the primary colon cancer. We divided the patients into two groups - randomly, with a control - and an ANP treated group.

32 patients in the ANP group and 33 patients in the control group. In the ANP group, we added ANP A10 injections in the vein of the arm for one week and the AS2-1 capsules for at least one year in addition to the inter arterial hepatic infusion of 5FU (chemotherapy).

In the control group, about 50% of the patients lived around 36 months. In the ANP group, 50% of the patients lived about 70 months.

So obviously ANP makes survival longer... about double.

The scientific community invented the 'randomized study' to not only exclude any anecdotal data, they are also avoiding bias.

This has been done in Kurume University Hospital completely independent from any other institute.

We were not given any advice from Burzynski either.

This is the way that the scientists should be. First we doubt the data from Burzynkski.  Then we tested it.

We found that Dr. Burzynski was right.

It's not obviously "anecdotal" anymore.

 

(Rick Archer's Note: Dr. Tsuda's interview was taken from the second Burzynski documentary.   The documentary is not currently available on the Internet for free, so I went ahead and purchased a copy. 

Please take my word for it that I was careful to transcribe the interview correctly.

I do have one comment about the 'scientific method' when it comes to using humans.  I wonder how those people felt about being in the control group.  I doubt I would appreciate dying 34 months faster in the interests of science.)

FOOTNOTE: AT THE END OF THE SECOND BURZYNSKI DOCUMENTARY, DR. TSUDA REVEALS THAT NO ONE WILL PUBLISH HIS WORK.


Burzynski's Patients Speak up

 


Dr. Research:
One researcher among the tens of thousands, and a few emotional testimonies by patients in a movie he bankrolled, is what you are betting the farm on??

PLEASE tell me you have more than that.

Rebuttal:

"anecdotal anecdotal anecdotal".

Any time a doctor or researcher doesn't agree with a position, they typically trot out their favorite counterpoint:

“Anecdotal evidence is worthless as scientific evidence!”

The problem here is that many phenomena in medicine and nature can be observed, but not necessarily explained.  That doesn't mean it should be ignored and cast aside.

In my previous Medical Mysteries Chapter, Ignaz Semmelweiss noticed that a colleague died shortly after an accidental stab by a knife in the autopsy room. The colleague died of the exact same symptoms that had been killing all the women in the clinic during childbirth.  Now Semmelweiss could not see the germs on the knife, but he guessed there had to be a connection.  The "understanding" of the cause would come years later thanks to Louis Pasteur, but in the meantime Semmelweiss was able to eliminate puerperal fever simply by having the doctors wash their hands.  Score one point for "anecdotal".  (Story)

In my previous Medical Mysteries Chapter, Edward Jenner took note of a folk wisdom that suggested milkmaids never get smallpox.  Noting that milkmaids frequently did get cowpox, a similar but less virulent form of the disease, Jenner guessed there might be a connection.  Jenner cured the worst disease in mankind at the time simply by making an anecdotal observation and following a path to its logical conclusion.  (Story)

As a young graduate student in 1967, Stanislaw Burzynski made an interesting observation. One day Burzynski noticed that certain particular peptides appeared less frequently in the blood and urine of cancer patients than in healthy people. This fortuitous observation got him thinking.  What would happen if he put these same missing peptides back in the blood of cancer patients?  He surmised that giving them to cancer patients might help restore a sort of immunity.  Burzynski did not understand the reasons behind the observation, but he was determined to at least explore the possibilities.  (Story)

Given the fact that many medical discoveries have started with anecdotal observation, it seems ludicrous to ignore curious situations when they present themselves.  Even if nothing can be "proven" at the time, an army of walking talking Burzynski patients should not be casually dismissed as "anecdotal". 

"Anecdotal" is not considered worthless by our society.  Anyone with common sense knows this.  Courts of law consider eyewitness testimony as admissible evidence.  Employers consider character references of friends and former employers to be a useful predictor of a job candidate’s likely performance. Marketing people conduct surveys to get important useful information about the market. These are simple examples where some degree of anecdotal evidence is relied upon in everyday society.

It is only when the stakes get higher that people want more proof.  A perfect example of justified skepticism is in regards to paranormal events such as ghosts, UFOs, ESP, ETs and alien abductions.  None of these type of events can be proven to a general audience because they are so rare.  These are "you gotta see it to believe it" situations.

That said, there are guidelines for the "believability" of anecdotal observation. 

  1. The number of eyewitnesses, testimonials and claims.
  2. The consistency of the observations and claims.
  3. The credibility of the witnesses.
  4. The clarity of and proximity of the observation.
  5. The state of mind of the witnesses.
  6. What the witnesses/experiencers stand to gain from their testimony or claim.

The two Burzynski documentaries are chock full of amazing Burzynski success stories.  When you listen to these people talk, they can be very persuasive.  I came away believing their stories without hesitation. 

Why?  First of all, they identified themselves and spoke without hesitation on camera.  They offered clear testimony that they were once very sick, that their initial doctors had told them it was hopeless, that they went to Burzynski, and now, years later, they are doing fine.

What do they have to gain?  Hmm.  Even Burzynski's worst critics don't believe Burzynski is giving these people money to testify in his behalf.  There is not one hint of insincerity in their voices to indicate they are "in on the scam". 

To me, when I hear their tales of suffering and fear followed by the joy at their recovery against all odds, it seems obvious they wish to speak up because they believe Burzynski's treatment saved them.  They feel intense gratitude and wish to help the man overcome the tremendous skepticism of the larger Medical Community.  That is obviously their motive.

Now, as for the Skeptics, I cannot help but distrust their motives.  I have now written SIX PREVIOUS CHAPTERS complete with one "Anecdote" after another to prove my point that there are ruthless people who are more than willing to eliminate cancer cures that might threaten their own income.


It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his income depends on his not understanding it .

Upton Sinclair

When a highly-trained German doctor like Max Gerson runs an experiment that shows "Diet" of all things can cure tuberculosis, when Albert Schweitzer, the leading humanitarian of the Twentieth Century, steps up to say his friend Gerson is a genius, and when a thug like Morris Fishbein finds a way to discredit and destroy Gerson, I say take a look at the relative "Credibility" of the witnesses and figure out what each person stands to gain. 

Gerson spent his whole life curing people.  Schweitzer spent his whole life saving Africa.  Fishbein spent his whole life getting America hooked on tobacco.  Now I may be little more than a lowly Social Science major, but there are times when someone even with a limited intellect such as myself has to weigh all the "anecdotal evidence" and come to a reasonable conclusion. 

Yes, you may call it a "Leap of Faith" if you wish, but I believe that Max Gerson was destroyed because he was pursuing an effective and inexpensive cure for cancer.  But I can't prove it.

And now we have reached the IDENTICAL CROSSROAD with Burzynski.  I can't PROVE Burzynski is right.  I can only weigh the evidence in my own mind.

To me, unlike the rigorously trained scientific community, I say "anecdotal evidence" has value.  When I see a tear-stained Burzynski patient thank him for saving her life, that has meaning and value to me.  It must be my soft-minded social science background.

To deny the importance of these testimonials demonstrates that medical skeptics are all about playing a closed-minded game rather than being realistic.  When confronted with reality like an army of walking talking Burzynski cancer victims who should be dead now, they continue to just fall back on their favorite defense... “Anecdotal evidence is worthless as scientific evidence!”

Eventually, the naysayers lose credibility.  People begin to simply ignore them. It’s obvious that the critics either lack the most basic common sense or they are in denial.  Or perhaps they are cynically playing a deliberate game of obstinacy as a stall tactic.  Let's rip the competition and see if we can get rid of them while plodding our way to our own "cure for cancer".

Personally speaking, I found the testimony of Burzynski cancer survivor Jodi Fenton to be inspiring (I have included her story below).

But then the Skeptics argue that these warm fuzzy stories are obvious manipulation by the Eric Merola, director of the two documentaries.  Their argument is identical to Dr. Research commenting on "a few emotional testimonies by patients". 

Can you even imagine the mindset of someone who casually dismisses people who cry on camera?  I think if I escaped a near-certain death sentence, I might get a little emotional myself.   

But don't let me convince you.  Make up your own mind.

I say you should decide for yourself about "anecdotal".  You can always go see the first video for free.  All you have to do is click Burzynski Documentary I.  If you are in a hurry, hit 'fast forward'.  Jodi Fenton appears about 9 minutes into the story.

Ms. Fenton had a type of cancer with a 13.9 month survival rate.  Thanks to Burzynski's treatment ("anecdotal", meaningless), Ms. Fenton is alive and kicking not 13 months later, but 13 YEARS LATER AND GOING STRONG.
 

JODI FENTON - on camera interview:

On May 15th of 2000, I was diagnosed with an inoperable, stage three, anaplastic astrocytoma brain tumor.

Following my diagnosis I was told that I had six to eighteen months to live. So I met with an oncologist here in Los Angeles and in San Francisco, and they were telling me at that time—the oncologist told me, that the protocol for me would be to do Temodar®  which is a chemotherapy, followed by a course of radiation.

(On screen-graphics: Temodar for Anaplastic Astrocytoma = 13.9 month median survival rate using this chemotherapy
[SOURCE: FDA/Schering-Plough Mar 2003 PPT])

I asked them what that treatment would get me and they said maybe five years.   "Maybe five years of life?"  

So of course I asked what would happen after five years, if I get to that five years and they said “well, we’ll see what’s available at that time” meaning I would perpetually be on a course of treatment. Didn’t sound good enough for me.

Also at that time I had heard about Dr. Burzynski in Houston, and I found out about Dr. Burzynski through a friend of mine. But I met with a prominent neurosurgeon here [Dr. Keith Black of Cedars-Sinai]—who wrote off Dr. Burzynski.  Dr. Black told me point blank that “antineoplastons don’t work”.

But Dr. Burzynski’s treatment really sounded right to me. So I started on his treatment on June 6 of 2000. In December of 2000, all that was left of the tumor was scar tissue—and again, this was confirmed through an MRI.  On October of 2001, I stopped Antineoplaston therapy altogether. I’ve had annual MRIs since that time, so over the course of the last eight years, annual MRIs have confirmed, all that’s left of the tumor is scar tissue—and I’ve been off the treatment for that entire time.  

Dr. Burzynski cured me of a brain tumor.

[SOURCE: J Fenton Med Recs PDF pg5-11; Third-Party confirmation PDF pg 12-13]

Transcript of Jodi Fenton's story

Dr. Research:

And don't get me wrong; there are many spirited debates in biology, in academic and industry settings, including dozens of countries on what will bring us closer to the cure (as in astronomy: are black holes needed to form galaxies, is life possible on Mars, etc.). But these are based on peer reviewed, independently verified data. Data collected by testing with preclinical models (i.e. tissue culture cells, mice, ...), and then clinical trials in humans, measuring safety and efficacy. Bruzinsky has none of this bolstering his "cure".
 

Rebuttal:

I can see the point of Dr. Research.  Since I am not familiar with the research game, it never occurred to me that men like Dr. Research depend heavily on published research.  Now I understand that Dr. Research doesn't believe in a Medical Conspiracy, but I do. 

After studying the tactics of Morris Fishbein in Chapter Five, I realize it is possible to actually hide research that is being done by threatening various publications with retaliation were they to break any taboos.  The story of Royal Rife in Chapter Four showed how Morris Fishbein was able to make the work of possibly the greatest scientist in American history completely disappear from sight. 

If Fishbein can vaporize Royal Rife, surely Fishbein's contemporaries can do the same thing to Burzynski.

What the modern day Fishbeins didn't count on was the arrival of Eric Merola, the man who created the two Burzynski documentaries. 

In Eric Merola's own words:

"For me, perhaps the most stunning aspect of Part I is where I was able to prove how the very same agencies trying to imprison Burzynski for the rest of his life for "interstate commerce", were also colluding with one of Burzynski's own research scientists as well as The Department Of Health and Human Services to file duplicate patents of already existing patents of one of his Antineoplastons' medications, "AS2-1"!

For Part II, I wanted to make a modern story of the current status of clinical testing of Antineoplastons.  I also wanted to roll the dice and follow patients from diagnosis, and throughout their journey using Antineoplastons. Some of them came out cancer-free, and some died.

I need to make it clear this therapy is not a "miracle cure" nor is it in any way a "magic bullet".  It works for some, and not for others.

I concentrated more of my efforts in Part II on the progress of the research.  The most amazing of all in Part II - for me - were my travels to Japan interviewing and meeting a team of pathologists, oncologists, radiologists, surgeons, neurosurgeons, PhD biochemists, and anesthesiologists at the Kurume Medical Center in Fukuoka, Japan.

This team did something that no other medical research team has had the courage to do, at least not at this scale. They underwent 27 years of independent studies of Antineoplastons, starting from mice studies in the 1980's, then Phase 1 human trials (testing toxicity), Phase 2 human trials (testing efficacy), and finally the first ever randomized human clinical trials-for colon cancer with metastasis to the liver, lungs and brain.

The "randomized trial" was created by the world's scientific community to eliminate "bias" and "anecdotal data".

As Dr. Hideaki Tsuda from my film says,

"Anecdotal data gives birth to the scientific mind. But recording anecdotal data again and again isn't convincing.  You have to create the randomized study where the patients are arranged randomly and no one knows who is getting just chemotherapy and who is also getting the experimental medications (in this case, Antineoplastons).

We did exactly this, and after 27 years of independently testing Antineoplastons, it's clear to us that Antineoplastons are now considered a proven therapy, and its results can no longer be considered anecdotal."

What is interesting about these Japanese studies is:

They were truly independent, and were not done under Burzynski's supervision or advice whatsoever.

Speaking to Burzynski about these monumental independent randomized trials conducted by the Japanese, Burzynski said,

"They didn't use the 24 hour infusions as I have done since the 1980s, they only gave the patients one week of arm injections of ANP, and then one year of oral pills of ANP.  If they used the infusions as I have designed, their results would have been far better."

While this is true that the Japanese ignored all of Burzynski's recommended protocols for their human studies-and chose to design their own, the fact that they had double the survival rate in the Antineoplaston group vs. the chemotherapy alone group-that is pretty darn incredible.

I can only imagine how the patients would have fared under the infusions. What is also remarkable about these Japanese studies is the fact that this medical team are not "alternative" scientists, they are orthodox medical doctors and scientists. And as such, they insisted on combining chemotherapy with both the control and Antineoplaston groups.

The Japanese insist that Antineoplastons work very well in connection with chemotherapy-as chemotherapy is "reactive" and "kills", while Antineoplastons are "non-reactive" and "occupy the space and reprograms the cells". They feel that the easiest way to ease Antineoplastons into the mainstream medical profession is to start there - combine it with chemotherapy.

In some ways I agree from a "paradigm-shift" stand point. Telling an oncologist to throw his chemotherapy into the garbage and start using only Antineoplastons overnight - from a bureaucratic standpoint - is next to impossible. This Japanese oncology medical research team firmly feels that Antineoplastons are a perfect complement to standard chemotherapy."

[ SOURCE - Trust Movies Interview ]
 

As Dr. Tsuda made clear at the end of the second Merola-directed Burzynski documentary, no one will publish his work. That explains why Dr. Research found absolutely no evidence of the Tsuda material that I have reproduced in this article.

If it wasn't for Eric Merola, the information on Dr. Tsuda would be completely vaporized from the American medical landscape. 

Thanks in large part to Eric Merola, the Burzynski genie was out of the bottle.  No matter how many nasty things Wikipedia and the other critics could say about the doctor, Burzynski's story was finally out there.

Dr. Oz admitted he would have never given Burzynski a second thought had not Emily, his mother in law, and Lisa, his wife, ganged up on him and forced him to watch the first documentary.

That is when Oz changed his mind.  Likewise for me.  I followed the lead of Dr. Oz and took a look myself.

In other words, the entrance of Eric Merola into Stanislaw Burzynksi's life was the biggest break the doctor had gotten in a long time.  Merola did such an effective job with his first documentary that Burzynski became an instant folk hero. 

Considering the oppression that Burzynski had been facing, one has to wonder why he got the big break and the others didn't.  Where was Merola when Royal Rife, Harry Hoxsey, Max Gerson, laetrile and Rene Caisse were being steamrolled into thin air?

One can only assume that modern technology has made it much more difficult to suppress information.  But that is a topic for another day.  For now, one can simply be amused that the faceless conspirators are scrambling.  To stoop so low as to print that Burzynski received the "Pigasus Award" for fraud in Wikipedia shows how desperate they have become to put the genie back in the bottle.

Well, my guess is that as long as Merola's documentaries continue to circulate, the Conspirators could be in trouble.

Here is an example of how effective Merola's work is.  Both Burzynski documentaries provided statistics on cancer survival rates in the deadliest forms of the disease.  Here is a narrative taken from the first Burzynski documentary. 

NARRATOR (Eric Merola):
If we review Jodi Fenton’s medical records, who was known at this time as Jodi Gold before she was married in 2005—it shows she underwent an MRI at St. John’s medical center in Los Angeles on May 11th of 2000, where they found a two centimeter mass, which they suspected was cancer. The pathology department at St. John’s performed a biopsy four days later, and confirmed that she did indeed have a malignant brain tumor.

[SOURCE: J Fenton Med Recs PDF pg 2-9]

Ordinarily the FDA requires that anyone that wished to be a part of Dr. Burzynski’s trials, must first have already undergone chemotherapy and radiation—and failed. However, since Jodi’s tumor was so aggressive and her prognosis severely grim, she managed to get "special exception status" to be placed into this trial without undergoing any other prior treatment whatsoever. [SOURCE: J Fenton Treatment Summary]

An MRI on June 1st of 2000, revealed the size of the enhancing portion of Jodi’s tumor, which was the part of her tumor that was the most aggressively growing. On June 6th, she started Antineoplaston treatment, and by July 3rd, only a month after starting treatment the enhancing portion of her tumor was gone. Her tumor remained non-existent up until October of the following year, when she stopped her antineoplaston therapy altogether. [SOURCE: J Fenton Med Recs (same as above)]

It’s one thing to be shown a single anecdotal case with this type of brain tumor, and it’s another to simply compare clinical trial data of inoperable anaplastic astrocytoma patients treated with toxic radiation and chemotherapy, versus, clinical trial data using only Dr. Burzynski’s non-toxic Antineoplaston therapy.

A 2005 clinical trial report using only radiation and chemotherapy, found that 5 of 54 patients, or 9%, were cancer-free at the end of treatment.
            
[SOURCE: Schering-Plough 2005, PDF pg 5]

While a 2008 clinical trial report using only Antineoplastons, found that 5 of 20 patients, or 25%, were cancer-free at the end of treatment—with no toxic side-effects. Jodi Fenton is one of them
            
[SOURCE: Neuro-Oncology 2008]

 

   
Dr. Research:

And don't get me wrong; there are many spirited debates in biology, in academic and industry settings, including dozens of countries on what will bring us closer to the cure.  But these debates are based on peer reviewed, independently verified data.  Data collected by testing with preclinical models (i.e. tissue culture cells, mice, ...), and then clinical trials in humans, measuring safety and efficacy.

Bruzinsky has none of this bolstering his "cure"!!


The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.
– Richard Horton

Rebuttal:

Here are some more of the comparative statistics posted in the first Burzynski documentary.

Now one should be careful.  David Gorski, one of Burzynski's leading critics, has warned everyone that the first documentary was full of "distortions, salesmanship, and exaggerations that a typical late night infomercial uses."  (source) (see #1 picture)

Maybe so.  But for the sake of argument I will continue anyway.  About 12 minutes into the movie, we were shown a comparison between the effectiveness of standard cancer treatment versus Burzynski antineoplastons.  

Anaplastic astrocytoma is a fancy name for a brain tumor.  The statistics on the survival rate show this is a type of cancer where basically no one survives.  One typically has about a year to live upon diagnosis.  The survival rate for anaplastic astrocytoma past five years is close to zero.  (see #2 picture)

When it comes to statistics for Burzynski's antineoplaston therapy, a first glance at the numbers in the chart on the right are not every encouraging. A 25% cure rate doesn't leap off the page and make us cry for joy.

But when you compare 25% to Zero, then you begin to think twice. For anyone to survive at all is a medical miracle.   Previously everyone died.  Burzynski is able to save a few.

One of the interesting features about the first documentary is that Eric Merola, the director, assumed that people would not trust his work.  He actually anticipated people like Gorski would challenge every single detail.  So Merola went to the extraordinary length of posting the source of every single one of the documents show in the Documentary on the Internet. 

In Merola's own words:

The entire film is backed up and sourced for transparent fact-checking by anyone—including the copycat patent situation. Every document used in the film is available—in context—for anyone to scrutinize and fact-check for themselves. I knew I had to back up everything in this documentary since most people would find corruption of this magnitude simply too hard to believe at face value.

Eric Merola was right. One of David Gorski's criticisms of the documentary was that it was full of distortions and exaggerated claims. (see #1 picture)

Based on Gorski's criticism, I decided I would personally fact-check this "medical miracle" statistic myself. 

So I went to the transcript provided by Merola and took a look.  I have listed each source so any reader may duplicate my efforts.

The source for all of these statistics can be found in Chapter Two of Merola's accompanying transcript.

Look for this section near the top of the page:

3. A 2005 clinical trial report using only radiation and chemotherapy, found that 5 of 54 patients, or 9%, were cancer-free at the end of treatment
[SOURCE: Schering-Plough 2005, PDF pg 5]  
(see #3 picture)

3. While a 2008 clinical trial report using only Antineoplastons, found that 5 of 20 patients, or 25%, were cancer-free at the end of treatment—with no toxic side-effects.  [SOURCE: Neuro-Oncology 2008]  (see #4 picture)

Note: Jodi Fenton was one of those five survivors. We will read about her story in a moment.

As one can see, I posted what I found. Eric Merola told the truth on every statistic.  Only 9% survived using traditional radiation and chemotherapy.  25% survived using Burzynski's treatment. 

My first point is that this key statistic presented in the movie checked out.  This was a good showing for a documentary accused of "distortions, salesmanship, and exaggerations."

In my opinion, this simple test increased Merola's credibility while diminishing Gorski's credibility.

My second point is that a 25% cure may not seem impressive, but it clearly outperforms the standard methods of treatment.  A 9% score for chemotherapy is certainly nothing to brag about.

I sometimes wonder would what would happen if Burzynski was left alone from all the legal harassment and FDA obstruction to perfect his cure.  Perhaps with time and practice, he could improve on that number.  

Our final statistic deals with Brainstem Gliomas

Brain stem tumors are perhaps the most dreaded cancers in pediatric oncology, owing to their historically poor prognosis, yet they remain an area of intense research.

These are the pitiful little kids with the bald heads who are doomed to die.  It is uncommon for a child with a tumor in this location to live longer than 12 to 14 months after diagnosis. 

As the chart suggests, not one child treated with standard chemo and radiation made it to five years. (see #5 picture)

On the other hand, Burzynski had total cures lasting over five years with 11 out of 40 patients.  He gave 11 kids their lives back to them.  If this doesn't get your attention, nothing will.

But these debates are based on peer reviewed, independently verified data.  Bruzinsky has none of this bolstering his "cure"!!

I can't help but wonder what Dr. Research would say about this data. 

Incidentally, Eric Merola posted a "Frequently Asked Questions" feature on his documentary website.

There is a wealth of information about Burzynski that can be found there.  Included are answers from Merola debunking some of the common misconceptions about Burzynski.

1. David Gorski slams Merola.

2. Anaplastic Astrocytoma: 44 to 74 week survival rate

3. Source: Transcript Chapter Two

3. SOURCE: Schering-Plough 2005, PDF pg 5

4. SOURCE: Neuro-Oncology 2008

5. SOURCE: Pedatric Drugs 2006 PDF pg 8]

 
Dr. Research:

And the conspiracy angle you speak of is ludicrous considering the number of people and governments that would have to be involved.

Rebuttal:

I cannot PROVE that there is a conspiracy.  But I say ask yourself again why our government would go to the trouble of spending $60 million dollars to prosecute someone for the crime of letting patients take cancer treatment home with them?

Royal Rife, Harry Hoxsey, Max Gerson, Morris Fishbein, Laetrile, Essiac... I think anyone with the ability to connect the dots will see the pattern here.

If a patient can legally receive treatment in Burzynski's clinic, why should it be illegal for them to take it across State Lines to continue the treatment in the comfort of their own home? 

And even if it is technically "illegal", so what?  Ask yourself this question, "Who cares enough to enforce this rule?"

Obviously no one on earth cares!  You don't care and I don't care... but somebody does.  Who are they?

Someone cares to the tune of $60 million dollars!  And who would that be? 

The answer would be whomever would lose the most if the Burzynski treatment was legalized for general use.  The answer would be whomever would benefit the most if Burzynski and his treatment were to go away.

I contend that Burzynski's innovative treatment is so dangerous to the pharmaceutical drug industry and the cancer industry that he has been targeted and harassed at every turn for the past 35 years.  $60 million dollars is just the tip of the iceberg.  When one adds up the price tag for all the trials over 35 years, the government has spent $200 million dollars trying to shut this man down.  And they won't stop until they succeed.


"It took me years to realize that the people in control of the cancer treatment world today did not want a simple, quick cure for cancer. It was not in their economic or career interest. They want complicated disease syndromes and all the paraphernalia of techniques, expert analysis, peer group conferences, papers, discussions, research grants and clinical trials for years before a new cancer therapy might be allowed. It is a horrendous crime which serves only those on the "inside" who are playing the great, lucrative "expert" game."

- Barry Lynes, author of "The Cancer Cure That Worked" p. 126 (the story of Royal Rife)

 


And they say there's
 no Conspiracy??

 
   
Dr. Research:

And even Bruzinski knows what he's working with now. It turns out the key molecule Bruzinski "discovered" a few decades ago is a HDAC inhibitor, though he didn't know it at the time. I know this class of compounds well, working with them (and others) at the company I was at. And there is some mild improvement with treatment when combined with other treatments.

In fact clinical trials are going on now with that class of compounds, though the HDAC inhibitors used these days are improved over Bruzinski's. They are not a very effective treatment though considering the number of genes they target. So, he may have serendipitously helped a few patients early on (I'll be generous here), given at the time the alternative cancer treatments available today weren't available back then. Yet even his best case study files lack the histology to prove conclusively that his treatment worked, or that the patient was already cured by prior treatment, and during his treatment, the scar tissue was simply receding. And of the few cases he showcases as his success stories, how about the thousands not mentioned. 3/6 people cured would be miraculous. 3/60 somewhat noteworthy. 3/600 or 3/6000, nothing more than a placebo. His inability and reluctance to produce complete case studies of all his patients makes one believe the last case numbers. We need to know what is called the denominator (number of people treated). And this is always done with a randomized group for true verification. Bruzinski's trials are not randomized.

As I mentioned above, his "miracle cure" is a well known HDAC inhibitor. BTW, currently sold by a number of pharmaceutical companies (It's believed he currently buys his own stock from China), and can be prescribed by any medical doctor out there. So though Bruzinski may have stumbled onto something that has mild efficacy early on, Others then discovered what the small molecule responsible was. This is where, in my opinion, Bruzinski turned. He realized he had no "angle" any more. So he began calling his molecule (again, commercially available elsewhere, with better types these days out there) "targeted therapy". This is bullshit since HDAC inhibitors target well over a hundred genes. So, to make an even better selling point, he added in his arsenal 20+ already FDA approved targeted drugs. So, he has no magic bullet or cure. He is relying on cocktails of already FDA approved (ironic, isn't it) drugs.

What makes his current approach truly insidious is the following:

1) He looks at biomarkers (proteins expressed) to determine what cocktail to give a patient (as many of us in the field do), but he unexplainably often uses results found in other tissues. Not the cancer Bruzinski is treating. For example, if he's treating liver cancer, he may use a biomarker that was looked at in a breast cancer. Very dangerous and irresponsible to compare two different tissues like this.

2) Drugs are mixed together willy nilly by him without testing for toxicity and efficacy beforehand. This is important. Successful targeted therapy to date, is approved by the FDA on particular tumor types with proper controls and safety standards using one drug at a time (though well thought out combinations are starting to be looked at in properly controlled studies). Unstudied combinations of drugs can severely affect the MOA (mechanism of action) of the original drug, and possibly result in dire consequences for the patient because of interactions among the biological pathways affected by each drug in his cocktail. Burzinski's "throwing everything but the kitchen sink" approach for the patient is untested, unsafe, and unethical. BTW, this may help explain why there is such a high withdrawal rate of patients from his studies, indicating very toxic side effects. And because it's a mixture, each individual drug has to be at lower than optimal doses. Treating with standard care with the one key drug at optimal dose yields the best, proven result. But then Burzinski's cocktail angle is gone, and he would have nothing new to offer patients that they couldn't get at a conventional hospital.
 

Rebuttal One:

I personally do not have a "medical" rebuttal for anything Dr. Research has said here.  I do not question that he possesses advanced medical expertise.  After all, this man received a degree in the highly complicated field of Cellular and Developmental Biology. 

The problem with the Medical Civil War is that people in Dr. Research's own field do not agree with him.  For example, there is contradictory evidence for his claims that comes from within the same medical research community in which Dr. Research works.  Back in the early Nineties a fellow cancer researcher named Dr. Dvorit Samid filed 11 ANP patent applications.  These "copycat patents" were directly supported by none other than the National Cancer Institute as part of the Department of Health and Human Services.

On Page 54 (of 111) in Patent 5605930, Dvorit Samid stated that the antineoplastons that she had researched did indeed work.  In her own words, several deadly cancerous conditions ARE TREATABLE BY THIS METHOD.  (see picture)

In other words, Dr. Research is contradicted by a fellow cancer researcher.  I might add that to my knowledge, Dr. Research has never worked with ANP.  On the other hand, Dvorit Samid did her work DIRECTLY WITH ANTINEOPLASTONS.

So which highly-trained cancer researcher are we supposed to believe?

 

Rebuttal Two:

Rick Archer's Note:  A medical researcher here in Houston read my article and offered a few words.  His replies are listed in purple.

 

 

Dr. Research:

And even Bruzinski knows what he's working with now. It turns out the key molecule Bruzinski "discovered" a few decades ago is a HDAC inhibitor, though he didn't know it at the time. I know this class of compounds well, working with them (and others) at the company I was at. And there is some mild improvement with treatment when combined with other treatments.

Dr. Research definitely displays a negative bias of Burzynski/Bruzinski.  I found Dr. B’s work remarkable in that he had identified the absence of a group of peptides and correlated that with cancer patients.  Good catch.  I recall in all the reading that another research center had noted the absence of these peptides but never made the connection.  I’m not sure when Dr. B’s first made this discovery but our analytical capabilities have increased by leaps and bounds, so today we can be blasé and say these are HDAC inhibitors whereas back then we probably did well to identify them more generically as a subgroup of peptides having no knowledge of HDAC inhibitors.

In fact clinical trials are going on now with that class of compounds, though the HDAC inhibitors used these days are improved over Bruzinski's. (Well, yeah!  The state of the art has increased substantially.)

They are not a very effective treatment though considering the number of genes they target.

I assume that more than one research study was performed to establish the efficacy of HDAC inhibitors.  Obviously at the time someone felt there was value in exploring these compounds as a possible treatment for cancer and come to the conclusion that they were “not a very effective treatment.”  In research, you win some and you lose others.  There has been an immense amount of cancer research that has come to similar dead ends.

So, he may have serendipitously helped a few patients early on (I'll be generous here), given at the time the alternative cancer treatments available today weren't available back then.

This looks like an admission – begrudging – the Dr. B was ahead of the current state of cancer treatment at the time.  So what is the problem?

Yet even his best case study files lack the histology to prove conclusively that his treatment worked, or that the patient was already cured by prior treatment, and during his treatment, the scar tissue was simply receding. And of the few cases he showcases as his success stories, how about the thousands not mentioned. 3/6 people cured would be miraculous. 3/60 somewhat noteworthy. 3/600 or 3/6000, nothing more than a placebo. His inability and reluctance to produce complete case studies of all his patients makes one believe the last case numbers. We need to know what is called the denominator (number of people treated). And this is always done with a randomized group for true verification. Bruzinski's trials are not randomized. 

This is clearly a weakness on the part of Dr. B.  As I have stated, when counseling a patient about any type of treatment or procedure the responsible and legally binding responsibility is to present the pros and the possible cons so that the patient has enough information to make their decision.  We call that Informed Consent and we in medicine are legally bound to present that information before any procedure.  NOT AN OPTION.

As I mentioned above, his "miracle cure" is a ( now! ) well known HDAC inhibitor. BTW, currently sold by a number of pharmaceutical companies 

So if it is of no value, then why are – not one but several – pharmaceutical companies going to the considerable expense of manufacturing them?  Perhaps since it targets so many other genes there is value beyond the cancer treatment aspect.

It's believed he currently buys his own stock from China), and can be prescribed by any medical doctor out there. So though Bruzinski may have stumbled onto something that has mild efficacy early on, Others then discovered what the small molecule responsible was. This is where, in my opinion, Bruzinski turned. He realized he had no "angle" any more. So he began calling his molecule (again, commercially available elsewhere, with better types these days out there) "targeted therapy". 

I don’t know the year-to-year historical context here to decide whether Dr. B realized that he no longer had an angle.  This presupposes that Dr. B was not interested in helped cancer patients but was more focused on making a profit from his treatment.

This is bullshit since HDAC inhibitors target well over a hundred genes. So, to make an even better selling point, he added in his arsenal 20+ already FDA approved targeted drugs. So, he has no magic bullet or cure. He is relying on cocktails of already FDA approved (ironic, isn't it) drugs. 

Maybe.  Dr. R presupposes that Dr. B was trying to maintain a marketing angle.  I did take note that nurse Rene Caisse felt the need to “improve” upon the original Native American recipe and added four additional ingredients to the original four ingredients.  Did that really improve its effectiveness or was this just an attempt to supersize her product.

What makes his current approach truly insidious is the following:

1) He looks at biomarkers (proteins expressed) to determine what cocktail to give a patient (as many of us in the field do), but he unexplainably often uses results found in other tissues. Not the cancer Bruzinski is treating. For example, if he's treating liver cancer, he may use a biomarker that was looked at in a breast cancer. Very dangerous and irresponsible to compare two different tissues like this.  (Dr. R is correct.  I can’t imagine Dr. B’s rationale.)

2) Drugs are mixed together willy nilly (judgment call – is this substantiated somewhere) by him without testing for toxicity and efficacy beforehand. This is important.

Dr. R is absolutely correct about current practice.  Early research was a lot of wandering in the dark.  Current research is much more targeted in order to evaluate what is most effective.  I think there is a lot of value to this.  May be slower but the process yields more information which can be applied to subsequent research.

Successful targeted therapy to date, is approved by the FDA on particular tumor types with proper controls and safety standards using one drug at a time (though well thought out combinations are starting to be looked at in properly controlled studies). Unstudied combinations of drugs can severely affect the MOA (mechanism of action) of the original drug, and possibly result in dire consequences for the patient because of interactions among the biological pathways affected by each drug in his cocktail. Burzinski's "throwing everything but the kitchen sink" approach for the patient is untested, unsafe, and unethical. BTW, this may help explain why there is such a high withdrawal rate of patients from his studies, (what is the basis for this statement?) indicating very toxic side effects. And because it's a mixture, each individual drug has to be at lower than optimal doses. Treating with standard care with the one key drug at optimal dose yields the best, proven result. But then Burzinski's cocktail angle is gone, and he would have nothing new to offer patients that they couldn't get at a conventional hospital.

In my opinion, Dr. Research’s case suffers due to his obvious bias. 

Nevertheless, Dr. B’s failure to provide informed consent and his failure to give a rationale as he modifies his treatment are serious negatives.  When Dr. B got started the state of all cancer research resembled “willy nilly” yet progress was made.  For example, genes were hardly understood back then.  The state of the science has advanced light years since then but Dr. B does not appear to have kept up with the times and still uses the old way of doing things.  It may help with treatment – it may not, we do not know – but it does not help advance the science.   Remember, the independent Japanese studies only evaluated the type of cancer that Dr. B’s treatment had been most effective against.  It was shown to have some benefit but Dr. B’s treatment extended life but was not a cure and there were plenty of patients whose cancer did not respond.

 

 

THE MEDICAL  CIVIL WAR REVISITED

I am reminded again of what Dr. Oz said regarding the Medical Civil War. 

“You find the arguments that support your data,” Oz said, “and then it’s my fact versus your fact.”

As the reader may remember, after the Grand Jury monkey trials of 1997, all charges were dropped against Burzynski.

From that point on, Burzynski was allowed to participate in FDA-approved clinical trials.  By definition, all drugs within FDA clinical trials are considered experimental. That is the entire purpose of an "experimental FDA clinical trial". All drugs on the market today, without exception, had to pass through a series of FDA clinical trials.  They were all considered "experimental" before approved for public use to be later considered "standard treatment".

Due to his renegade status, over the years Burzynski has encountered multiple delays and roadblocks in the testing of his treatment.

At this point, Burzynski's antineoplastons have finished Phase I and Phase II testing.  Since 2009 Burzynski has been allowed to conduct Phase III Clinical Trials.

"I hope and pray your articles do not cost lives. Good riddance, for now."

When Dr. Research implies that antineoplastons are dangerous enough to cost lives, I do not know what he is talking about.  By definition, no drug enters Phase III until the medicine has passed rigorous "safety" tests beforehand.

Phase III is the last step. It determines just how effective the treatment is. 

I would like to point out that in order to reach the "Phase III" plateau, it is acknowledged that the antineoplastons must deliver an effect or we would not have even gotten this far in the first place. 

Therefore I think the major question is not whether ANP works or not, but how much.  It may indeed turn out to be a dud, but I doubt seriously it is "dangerous" other than being ineffective.

On the other hand, ANP may win Burzynski a Nobel Prize.  Unfortunately, we all have little choice but to await the results. 
 

HEARSAY

Returning to Dr. Research and his various criticisms, I do find it odd that Dr. Research speaks as if he has insider's knowledge of Dr. Burzynski's clinic.  How else would he know so much to be FACT about Burzynski's practice?  

"Drugs are mixed together willy nilly by him without testing for toxicity and efficacy beforehand."

"Burzinski's 'throwing everything but the kitchen sink' approach for the patient is untested, unsafe, and unethical."

How, for example, would Dr. Research know that drugs are mixed together willy nilly by Burzynski without testing for toxicity and efficacy beforehand? 

How would Dr. Research know that Burzynski throws everything but the kitchen sink at the patient?  Given how fuzzy this analysis is, one can wonder if maybe Burzynski throws the kitchen sink too.

One would assume Dr. Research must have seen him do it to be so confident, yet he does not cite any sources or claim any direct experience.  So one would naturally wonder where this information came from.

Here is what I find curious.  Dr. Research demands rigorous double blind peer-reviewed studies with cold hard facts before he is going to believe a single thing I have printed about Burzynski.  It doesn't mean a thing to him that I list source after source for my claims.

And yet Dr. Research offers an entire page of unsubstantiated claims - willy nilly, kitchen sink - and expects us to take his word for it even though he hasn't offered a single reputable source for his claims.

"My understanding is, these days Bruzinski often includes standard chemotherapy and radiation in his "treatments" anyway."

When Dr. Research adds phrases like "my understanding is" to his commentary, I become even more convinced that Dr. Research is simply passing on rumors he has heard, but never actually witnessed with his own eyes.

Personally, I doubt seriously Dr. Research has ever been inside Dr. Burzynski's clinic in his life.  If that is the case, I don't know why he speaks with so much confidence. As far as I can tell, this is all hearsay.  Heck, most of the time he can't even spell Burzynski's name right.

In the end, like Dr. Oz suggests, it all comes down to whom you choose to believe.

 

Dr. Research:

3) My understanding is, these days Bruzinski often includes standard chemotherapy and radiation in his "treatments" anyway. So he's come full circle that at least in a number of his cases, he realizes the benefit of standard care. (Keep in mind different cancers respond to chemotherapy and radiation differently).

From what I have read about Burzynski, I strongly doubt the chemo and radiation angle.  That said, according to the Second Documentary, Burzynski has indeed added personalized gene-targeted therapy to his treatment model.  

From what I gather, this is the cutting edge of modern cancer treatment.  MD Anderson in Houston is building an entire new clinic specifically for "Personalized Cancer Therapy", a treatment described as very similar to what Burzynski is doing.

However, I am unsure what Dr. Research thinks it proves that Burzynski is using personalized gene-targeted therapy.  Indeed, according to the Second Documentary, the FDA has currently shut down Burzynski's use of antineoplastons on any new patients.

I found this sad note on the Internet which confirms what the Second Documentary said:

Cornelia Doros on April 9, 2013 at 21:52 said:

My name is Cornelia Doros and I was diagnosed in 2003 with Sclerosing Epitheloid Fibrosarcoma and had 5 surgeries, one radiotherapy and one cyberknife surgery.  As surgery is no more an option for me I went as well to Burzynski clinic this year in February.  I am desperate to find your way or any other way to get the treatment with antineoplastons. Please contact me on the phone or email. Thank you.     Source: Team Hannah Website

As one might gather, this questionable decision by the FDA has thrown current cancer victims into a state of acute desperation.

Given that Burzynski is not currently being permitted to use his own antineoplaston discovery, who can blame him for seeking other ways to treat patients? 


Dr. Research:

4) He charges huge fees to patients entering his "clinical trials". Taking advantage of people in their most vulnerable state. While not technically breaking the law, it's highly unethical to charge a patient volunteer for a clinical trial (because you are basically a guinea pig for presumable a promising, but unproven therapy. And this I've heard from multiple sources: he has a reputation of throwing patients out on the street (back to hospitals for conventional therapy) once their funding runs out.

Rebuttal: From what I gather, cancer treatment is expensive wherever one goes.  Furthermore, our debate is supposed to deal with how Burzynski is dangerous to the American public.  The cost of treatment has nothing to do with safety or efficacy.
 

Dr. Research:

5) His patients buy his drugs from a pharmacy he owns. Downright despicable. His mark-up in price for commonly available drugs is known to be exorbitant. And it's a conflict of interest to be prescribing the very drugs that your patients then buy from you. (One report I read had his HDAC inhibitor marked up 15X from the same product sold by the pharmacy down the street).

Rebuttal: I do not know anything about this.  I only ask what does this have to do with proving Burzynski's treatment is unsafe or doesn't work?  The cost of medicine has nothing to do with either question.
 

Dr. Research:

So, bottom line, while Bruzinski's intentions decades ago may have been noble (I'll assume the best here), he has morphed into a huckster of the worst kind, selling commonly available, FDA approved drugs, and then packaging his approach (of recklessly combining drugs) as "novel". No requisite toxicity studies or efficacy studies (even in mouse models) ever performed prior to administering the cocktail to the human patient (unconscionable). No real rationale or prior positive test results why his cocktail should work. And no positive reports published by him from any of his clinical trials with this approach (actually nothing at all published from him for nearly a decade).

Rick. Trust me on this. He is NOT the rock star you want to hitch your wagon to.

With all due respect, my faith in you having a completely open mind is ebbing.
 


The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and try to put things in it.
- Terry Pratchett

And what you haven't answered is why you haven't asked this information from myself or others before publishing your last article?  The damage is already done.  (Rick Archer's Note:  It is extremely difficult to understand why Dr. Research feels I need to ask his permission.)

If you don't, and Burzynski continues to harm helpless patients, then that karma goes on you, not me.

Helping to promulgate a false cure is the worst karma of all. To paraphrase Lenin, Burzinski's must truly be grateful for his "useful idiots" in the field.

Anyway, the truth is out there Rick. And the authorities are (rightly) on his heels.
 

Conclusion

Dr. Research has brought up an excellent point.

"If Burzynski continues to harm helpless patients, then that karma goes on you, not me."

Using Carl Sagan's words as a reference point, I suppose I "desperately want" Burzynski's cure to work.

But, as Sagan wisely points out, "our preferences do not determine what is true."   Amen to that.  Just because we want it to be true doesn't make it so.

In the end, I accept that I am completely dependent on the words and works of others.

As I have made perfectly clear, I have no medical training.  Nor do I have any direct experience to share that might cast light on this argument. I don't know much more about the efficacy of Burzynski's treatment than I do about the existence of God. 

I have great respect for Dr. Research's career as a cancer researcher.  Throughout the Debate,  I have always kept in mind that he has deep knowledge of a field in which I am largely ignorant.  Consequently this has put me at a major disadvantage and prevented me from rebutting his message more forcibly. 

To review how this Debate began, Dr. Research directly contradicted a statement I made to him in an email:


Rick Archer wrote to Dr. Research:

Let Burzynski go about his business without the constant harassment. If the man is wrong, then let his failed results speak for themselves. Like herbal tea and apricot seeds, his cure isn't 'hurting' anyone, so leave him to do his research in peace.

Dr. Research replied,

Rick, you couldn't be more wrong on some points (and borderline insulting).

Yes, insulting, especially considering our respective backgrounds in the field.

Once you've made up your mind with the conspiracy angle, presenting the other side with reasonable explanations runs into a brick wall.

But at the risk of being insulting, Rick, you don't know what you don't know. And, there is more at stake here than switching milk brands.  I have underlined the most disturbing paragraph you've written.


Given that bold statement, I told Dr. Research that I expected him to share what his reasons were for warning me about Burzynski.

It took him a while, but he finally came through with his answers... which I have in turn shared with you without edit.

As I have said before, my only goal is to get it right. If Burzynski is a fake, I would be crushed to know I was mistaken. As Dr. Research correctly pointed out, it would be wrong to set desperate people up like that.

I will now conclude with these final points. 

  •   First, yes, I think there is a Conspiracy. But I don't think the Conspiracy has anything to do with Dr. Research or the fine doctors over at MD Anderson who deeply care about their patients.  These are men and women who are in Medicine for the right reason - to heal their patients and find a cure for cancer.
     
  •   Second, as one has surely gathered, the majority of the Mainstream Medical Community does not trust Burzynski's work.  They think he is either a fraud or he is misguided.  There is a possibility that they are wrong.  They have been wrong before.  The work of Barry Marshall on the true cause of ulcers stands as a recent and very telling example. 
     
  •   Third, it appears that the "Conspiracy" has gone to a great deal of Morris Fishbein-style trouble (Chapter Five) to suppress information about Burzynski's work.  By limiting Burzynski's access to publication, this would explain why people don't trust him.  Because Burzynski "doesn't publish", he doesn't exist.  Therefore the casual doctor concludes he must be hiding something.

    In a sense, the two Eric Merola Documentaries have served as a brilliant counter-attack to get his message out despite the media suppression.  Merola's first Documentary reached Dr. Oz.  Then it reached me as well and made me curious enough to purchase the Second Documentary.  Fascinated by the message contained in both movies, I have decided to pass the message on to the Reader.  Hopefully, slowly but surely, the word about Burzynski will get around.
     
  •   Fourth, I have laid out a great deal of information based on the two documentaries that is supportive of Burzynski's work.  However, keep in mind that I have no way to vouch for the validity of any of this information.  All I can say is that I have shared my sources and I have not deliberately twisted any facts. Furthermore,  I have no knowledge of any dark deep secrets about Burzynski to hide.  If I thought something I read was important, I shared it. So let the Universe set my karma accordingly.
     
  •   Fifth, I would like to remind everyone that I have absolutely no financial stake in my reports. I write for one reason only... evil flourishes when good men say nothing. I hope that bolsters my personal credibility in the reader's eyes.
     
  •   Finally, I would like to thank Dr. Research for sharing this information.  I am positive much of what he says is not readily available elsewhere. I consider us all fortunate that Dr. Research has gone to so much trouble to pass on what he thinks to be true. 

There can be little doubt that Dr. Research does not trust Burzynski and has little respect for him.  That said, I do not agree with Dr. Research.  I very much believe that Dr. Burzynski is on a path that will lead to a cure for cancer unless he is stopped.

BUT I CAN'T PROVE THIS.  I therefore leave it up to the reader to make up their own mind.

Here is a cautionary note written by a friend of mine who reviewed this chapter in advance of publication. 

This person not only has extensive medical training, he is a cancer survivor cured by conventional techniques.  Furthermore, my personal relationship with him tells me he has both an open mind and a basic decency about him.  These factors added together make this man a highly reliable source.

"You may or may not be aware that there are a vast host of snake oil peddlers out there with supposed cures for cancer.  I became aware of many of them when my holistic sister-in-law was researching alternative treatments for my father-in-law who had been diagnosed with end stage lung cancer.  Ionized water which cannot be shipped without losing its power.  Massive massive doses of vitamin C.  You name it. 

Most of them are very expensive – sometimes cripplingly so.  Some of them are even harmful.  Most of them are preying on desperate people looking for some ray of hope.  I have to wonder if Dr. Research has those abuses in the back of his mind when commenting about Burzynski.  It would be hard not to.  One could get the impression that Burzynski is marketing his product for personal gain."

I wish to remind the Reader one last time that Dr. Research is far more knowledgeable about the medical aspects of cancer than I can ever hope to be.  If Dr. Research says Burzynski is suspicious, then with reluctance I will continue to keep my guard up and gather more information.  I advise the Reader to do the same.

I openly admit the day may come when I realize Dr. Research was right along.  I very much hope that day never comes, but as Carl Sagan made clear, just because I want it to be true doesn't make it so.

In the meantime, welcome to the confusing world of Medicine.  On the subject of Burzynski, there is no certainty, but much hope.
 


"Modern medicine is a “Civil War” waged between conventional physicians and those who are open to alternative cures for maladies ranging from anxiety to cancer... - Mehmet Oz

“Medicine is a very religious experience. I have my religion and you have yours.  It becomes difficult for us to agree on what we think works, since so much of it is in the eye of the beholder.  Data is rarely clean.  You find the arguments that support your data and then it’s my fact versus your fact.” - Mehmet Oz


 


Chapter Eight:
The Twisted Golden Rule

FOOTNOTE

Here is some information I ran across just after I finished my chapter.  The reader will surely recall that Eric Merola is the man who made both Burzynski documentaries.  Merola has an extensive Frequently Asked Questions page regarding Burzynski's work. 

Listed here is an interesting question plus Merola's response.  It lists one study after another that report benefits resulting from Burzinsky's treatment.  Furthermore, keep in mind that these results are posted at the National Cancer Institute web page, the same institution that once attempted to copycat Burzynski's patents.  This fact alone lends considerable credibility to these findings.

Question to Eric Merola FAQ Page:

9. Does the National Cancer Institute acknowledge the clinical efficacy of Antineoplastons today?

Yes, CLICK HERE and view "Table 2" (or just look below)... last update April, 2013.

Also CLICK HERE to see a longer National Cancer Institute posting including some results from brainstem glioma Phase 2 trials of Antineoplastons.


True progress in medicine has always, without exception, been violently resisted by medical authorities who cling to the beliefs of their times

-
Dr. Julian Whitaker

   
1 - Current Status 2 - Medical Conspiracy 3 - Burzynski 4 - Royal Rife 45 - Morris Fishbein 6 - Medical Mysteries 7 - Civil War 8 - Twisted Golden Rule 9 - Corruption
   
SSQQ Front Page Parties/Calendar of Events Jokes
SSQQ Information Schedule of Classes Writeups
SSQQ Archive Newsletter History of SSQQ