Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business - Part II

2013, Health  -   218 Comments
Ratings: 8.27/10 from 124 users.

This story is a follow-up to the first documentary about Burzynski, a doctor and biochemist, who in late '60s discovered a new group of peptides in our bodies. After escaping from communist Poland to live in Houston in the 70's, Stanislaw Burzynski persisted in the research of his peptide finding and realized that people with cancer seemed to have low levels or lacked altogether these peptides.

He speculated that restoring these peptide levels could potentially be helpful in controlling cancer. Burzynski discovered how to synthesize these peptides, patented them, and named them Antineoplastons. He then lunched a publicly traded corporation, and entered the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clinical trial process to get Antineoplastons approved for market using his own newly formed pharmaceutical company - Burzynski Research Institute, Inc. And that's when... all hell broke loose.

American Government abandoned their primary attempt to take over these medicines after they submitted 11 patents of an already existing Antineoplastons by recruiting and conspiring with one of Burzynski's scientists.

Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski is, at the moment, the first and only scientist in United States history to start the federal drug authorization process for a medical cancer therapy without any financial backing from the American Government, the Pharmaceutical industry or the Cancer Establishment. As of the year 2013, only 10% of the patients that seek Burzynski's therapy are allowed to receive Antineoplastons due to strictly imposed federal government sanctions that limit who is, and who is not, allowed to receive them.

The patients that wish to receive Antineoplastons are required to go through a rigorous review process by America's Food and Drug Administration which generally requires proof that chemotherapy and radiation have first failed the patient, before being allowed access to Antineoplastons. Even if the FDA's prerequisite is fulfilled, the FDA holds full dictatorial rights to refuse patients'access to Antineoplastons if they chose.

More great documentaries

218 Comments / User Reviews

  1. I wanted to thank the makers of this film for exposing the 'Skeptic/Sceptic' movement's role in undermining anything they consider 'woo' or 'quackery', in this case the difficult work of Burzynski - I've been following them with horror for some years on a whole range of topics, the sheer hatred and scorn they emit, the predatory 'debunking' as they call it, the protracted efforts to infiltrate the media, The Guardian in the UK, and my beloved Radio 4, but I hadn't realized just to what extent they plot and lie by inference and omission. The writing in science based medicine about this treatment is totally at odds with what I see in this film, and has not been updated since 2013. They tell enough truth and give enough references to keep me strung along, now I see their true face. It is always possible to undermine, slander, debase even the best of things...I wonder what their true agenda is? It doesn't seem to be a love of humanity...

  2. The FDA the Big Pharma The Oncolosist center are nothing but greed they don't care if you live or die they don't lose money even you die from cancer
    They don't care about human life there nothing but evil all they care about is the mighty dollar

  3. lies, all lies!

    The serious business in Burzynski's clinic is the business of conning vulnerable people out of money!

  4. So still no data in over 35 years

  5. What a deception the 2nd documentary commercialized !!!??? The fisrt was free on YT with even many languages subtitles. it's anti-system feature was lost.

  6. "You can cure cancer in your sleep. I have cured cancer thousands of times in my own lifetime, and so have you, if you're still alive. Every living human being cures themselves of cancer over and over again because you're immune system locates and deals with cancerous cells in the body."

    By Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
    Editor of Natural News

    1. Mike Adams the health danger is a proven liar.
      a con man who makes money by pushing ridiculously expensive fake medicines to desperate people.

      the only scrutiny he gives to quacks are over the cheques they give him for advertising their lies!

    2. You got something to back that up?

    3. Besides his support for Homeopathy, Faith healing, Chiropractors and every other kind of snake oil out there?

    4. Again, U got something to back it up??

    5. Excuse me, but you throw out some claim by Mike Adams who has ZERO medical or scientific education and then when someone (a_no_n) gives you several reasons why Mike Adams is a crank, snake oil salesman, and charlatan your response is "you got something to back that up?"

      Back that up? All you have to do is to go to his web site and the evidence for his promotion of quackery is everywhere.

      How about you giving one single properly designed, double blinded, peer reviewed clinical trial that proves homeopathy works in any scientific way. Not as a placebo.

      Mike Adams is a supporter of Burznski's. After more than 35 years Burzynski has refused to publish any proof that his treatment works. It has been recently discovered that he DESTROYED all of the beginning scans and records of every single patient who was enrolled in his phony clinical trials. Did you get that?? He DESTROYED his patient's records.

      Hmmm?? Now I wonder why he would do that? Just in case you think I'm accusing him of something he didn't do, Burzynski admits to destroying these records.

    6. OK OK, alot of words.. slow down,... do u got something to back it up? u got something at all that i can read that can veryfi this or else its just empty words understand??. You don't like mike very much, i get that. But you don't have to beat youtself up about it just because he makes sense

    7. So I don't have to beat myself up over Mike Adams, just because he makes sense?

      I don't see someone making any sense when I look at what Mike is promoting. He is the lowest of the low. What kind of person takes to the Internet before the little bodies of 20 children are even cold, and starts crowing about it not having really happened. Can you even imagine how much additional pain you would be causing the families of these slaughtered children? EVEN if he thought he was really right, and trust me he knew those children were dead, he's a creep, but not a stupid creep, wouldn't you refrain from making comments like this on the small outside chance that he was wrong? No he didn't. It's more important to give the stupid dolts that love this conspiracy crap what they go to his retched web site to read about.

    8. Do you have a legitimate source for medical and scientific information? Because quoting anything from Natural News or Mike Adams will earn you an immediate FAIL.

      Natural News is a clearing house for pseudoscience, quackery, and conspiracy theories. Mike Adams was on his site within minutes of the ghastly Sandy Hook shootings calling it a false flag op by the government. In fact Adams never met a conspiracy he couldn't love. He's in the same league with that clown Alex Jones, Gary Null to mention a few.

      You have lost all credibility by quoting Mike Adams.

    9. Because he got a scientific education, u claim he is not educated, , sorry u have lost all credibility.

    10. could you please point out his "scientific education" ?
      edit: he claims to have a BSc but i cannot even find out what school he attended. and while i also have a BSc that makes neither of us an expert. as that designation covers too wide a field to judge knowledge on any specific subject

    11. What would you like to bet that Mikey's BSc is from the unaccredited, now defunct "Clayton School of Naturopathy". It was the school of choice for esteemed scientists like Hulda liver fluke Clark, Robert O Young and many others.

    12. It makes him educated.

    13. do you know what " prominent university in the Midwest." he attended? what discipline is his BSc in? sorry but without this information your claim is useless

    14. "Because he got a scientific education, u claim he is not educated, , sorry u have lost all credibility."

      What you have written makes no sense. Mike Adams not only has NO scientific or medical education, he hasn't received any higher education i.e. college either.

      If you are going to try and make the argument that a person doesn't need an education to be knowledgeable about science and medicine you will be laughed out of the room.

      Mike Adams is a "Salesman". He sells STUFF. He sells his stuff by criticizing mainstream medicine and science. He sells his STUFF by promoting b.s conspiracies. For instance, you absolutely MUST buy his anti-radiation device and detoxing supplements to ward off the massive waves of radiation that will soon be hitting the US!

      Adams is PT Barnum! He learned very early on that there REALLY is a sucker born every minute, and he will be standing close by to sell them his STUFF. It's a story as old as the hills. The only difference is it used to be they sold their nostrums from the back of their wagons, from town to town. Today it's the Internet.

    15. Mike Adams has a four-year bachelor of science degree from a prominent university in the Midwest. He has minors in mathematics and economics and that's not education?? you for real?. Your the one that makes no sense and bringing up this claims which u can not back up obviously.

    16. Or Mike Adams, the Health Danger.

      As people who know what they're talking about call him

  7. People need to wake up. The ignorance is on another level. We all know Burzynski is not all 100%, but seriously, you are telling me pharma and nci are something better? God please, its all corruption.
    Wherever you turn obviously someones going to be making money off you. Its business. Burzynski is a doctor and a businessman its real simple.

    Go do radiation if you want, and then we can talk - even if it cures you, it'll mess you up!

    The thing is I don't even need to do that much research. Results speak for themselves. Public backing speaks for itself. Inducements speak for themselves. If you want to be picky about petty things then go ahead... but be sure you won't be so picky when you have cancer - and Im sure you'll throw another £10,000 if the man saves your life - and if you want to pay less then deal with the radiation consequences, which will probably cost you more in the long term.

    1. when you say "Results speak for themselves" do you mean unverifiable claims or personal testimonials? because homeopathy,prayer,crystal therapy and countless other so called "cures" have that. or do you have scientifically verifiable and independently duplicated results with the data that i can see for myself ?

    2. You are missing the whole point. The reason for the very strict set of guidelines to be followed when testing an experimental treatment is to protect the patient as much as possible from harm. The other reason for having set guidelines is to evaluate a treatment in the purest way possible. That means setting up studies in a controlled way. Keeping accurate records and monitoring closely ANY negative side effects from the treatment.

      Burzynski has FAILED in every regard. Poorly designed trials. Sloppy record keeping.. Over reading positive results and under reading negative results. Not reporting adverse side effects. Perhaps the most egregious thing he is guilty of doing is DESTROYING all of the trial patients beginning scans and medical records. Because he did this it is now obvious that he never intended to publish any of the results of his clinical trials, In other words the whole thing is a sham.

      Your comment "results speak for themselves" is meaningless here. That's the problem there aren't any results to speak to. You seem to be laboring under the incorrect assumption that no one is ever successfully treated using conventional treatment. While it's true that certain types of cancer are more treatable than others. But the overall cure rate in 2013 is now at 63% and continuing to rise. So you are wrong in thinking that no one is cured with conventional medicine so why not try Burzynski's snake oil.

      I've had cancer and it's not a question of being or not being picky. If you find yourself faced with cancer and you are smart you want to know what
      your chances are using one treatment verses another kind of treatment. What are the odds. What are the complications. What has the best chance of working.

      Let me give you a real life example. Lets say you have a type of lymphoma that has a 95% cure rate with treatment and 100% death rate with no treatment. Now add to that equation that along with that 95% cure rate there is also a 5% chance that in 10-15 years you could be diagnosed with another cancer that is may have been caused by the chemo. Would you refuse the treatment? That's 5 people in 100 will go on to get another cancer in 10-15 years. You would be a fool to refuse treatment with such small odds that you might get cancer from the treatment and such a high chance of being cured! Yet all the time I hear people say "chemo gives you cancer why would you take that?" Well the devil is in the details so to speak. The details are the chances of being cured are so high and the chances you might get cancer down the road are so small, the decision is a no-brainer.

    3. So you think Burzynski probably isn't 100% but he's better than all the doctors, scientists, and researchers at the NCI and he's more competent, ethical, and honest than all the pharmaceutical employees? Yes! I do think the pharms and NCI are better than Burzynski. The pharmaceutical industry is the most heavily regulated on the planet. If it were true that corruption was as rampant as you seem to think wouldn't we be hearing about it every day in the news? I'm not saying there isn't the occasional screwup and misdeed. But we are talking about an industry with thousands of employees all around the world. Whistle blowers are rewarded handsomely for reporting illegal activities and business practices. If it's so prevalent why isn't all over the news?

      The NCI and scientific research in particular is probably one of the most honest fields there is. This is because research is so open to peer review. Any fraudulent research is almost always exposed during peer review. A scientists career rises and falls on their reputation. If they get caught fudging data they can say good bye to future grants to fund their work.

    4. Burzynski's pretty much a one man army. How can you work like that without being sneaky and unethical? You are competing with some big names and have never really been allowed to work freely from day 1. Try and work against the world, well see how far you get. If he wasn't trying to get robbed and hindered at every corner maybe it would be different today. NCI receives a great deal of support, is allowed to work openly, and gets a ton of money. You just cant compare them in my opinion, Burzynski's had to fund all his work, and work around all the bs with the FDA. It definitely does seem like an underground monopoly to me.

    5. you may be right or you may be wrong. but either way nothing you posted is a reasonable substitute for prof of efficacy of his treatments.

    6. "You are competing with some big names and have never really been allowed to work freely from day 1."

      First of all, no, Burzynski wasn't allowed to "work freely". No one in medical research is allowed to "work freely" i.e. do what ever, how ever, when ever they want to do it. The rules and guide lines are there to protect patients and to make sure the research is carried out in the proper fashion.

      Very few important advancements in treatments that are made today are made by some "lone wolf" researcher. They are almost always a collaborative effort. Sometimes the collaboration is even between scientists in different countries.

      "Try and work against the world, well see how far you get. If he wasn't trying to get robbed and hindered at every corner maybe it would be different today."

      Well, to begin with, he shouldn't have been working AGAINST the world i.e. the system! Burzynski didn't want to follow the rules from day one. Everyone else has to follow the guidelines but not Stan. Yes Burzynski's informercial floated the conspiracy that everyone was trying to rip him off. It doesn't make it true.

      The NCI is a branch of the National Institute of Health all are governmental institutions and are funded by the government. So yes they receive a lot of money. Many private researchers work with the NCI. The way Burzynski did it was NOT to fund the research himself. Then complete the clinical trials he had opened. Then write up the results and publish them so his peers could review and try to reproduce his findings.

      Stanly found a way around the system. The way Stanly did it was to recruit patients for his trials. Charge them hundreds of thousands of dollars to take part in the trials. So basically the PATIENTS were the ones funding Stan's trials. As of today he has never written up and published the results of ANY of his research so that his peers can evaluate and try to reproduce his findings.

      Ask yourself this question. If the results of Burzynski's research was so great and it proved that antineoplastons actually cured cancer, wouldn't he want to show this to the world? He would be vindicating himself and his treatment would be readily approved by the FDA. The treatment would then become available to EVERYONE, not just Burzynski's patients but to children with brain cancer all around the world. Oh, and Burzynski would not only be a hero to everyone, his face would be (Man of the Year) on the cover of Time. There would also be a Nobel Prize waiting for him in Stockholm!

      But that is NOT what Bursynski has chosen to do. Instead he's collected very large sums of money from his patients so they can participate in clinical trials that HAVE never and WILL never yield proof that this treatment works. This has been going on now for 30 some years. Wash, rinse, spin, repeat.

    7. You assume that the news operates with an autonomy over and above governments and other powerful entities and that every illegal activity or slip up on the part of these entities are covered by the news. The news industry is simply a propaganda machine since at least the 1940s in the US. It is the most powerful device that institutions of power can use to control the masses, since it holds the monopoly on public knowledge. A confidence in the news that someone like you has is an unfortunate position to take. It is common to assume that government regulates corporations, yes it does to an extent, but since the United States was not founded as a democracy, but a plutocracy, where the wealthy few hold the monopoly on power, it is more correct to say that corporations control and regulate government. We see this most clearly during presidential elections where candidates are heavily dependent on the financial backing of corporations for the success of their candidacy. The question one has to ask is why pump so much money into a candidate, surely there is a far greater advantage to this than the millions that are pumped in. There is absolutely no doubt that politics seeps into every aspect of the pharmaceutical industry and the health system. When one looks at it this way - the complicity between government and corporations - one is not surprised that is the most expensive country in the world for access to healthcare despite it not being the best. America's most so-called radical break rigid American capitalism in the form of Obamacare was only possible because it was in the interest of large and influential corporations. particularly the pharmaceuticals and healthcare. Such government led initiatives often seem in the interest of the people but end up being corporation led or backed initiatives that we don't often hear about by our heavily pro-corporation media. The moral of the story is don't rely on the news media to vigilantly seek out the bad, ugly things about our world so as to spoon fed it to you on the morning TV. One must think for one self and not rely too heavily on a propaganda machine that is the media.

    8. everything you have said is opinion and more importantly contains absolutely no proof this snake oil actually works.

    9. What does any of your long winded post have to do with Burzynski and the medical scam he's been perpetrating on desperate, volnerable cancer pateints for more than 35 years without publishing one scrap of evidence that it works.

      I can give you a mountain of evidence proving that he's as corrupt and dishonest as they come.

      Much if not most of this evidence is public record. For instance the last inspection of his clinic and his supposed trials he's been running by the FDA found violation after violation. Such as destroying the beginning scans and records of every single patient ever enrolled in one of his trials. He destroyed their records! Do you see the implications of this? Amazingly enough Dr B doesm't even deny doing this. Oh yeah he tries to offer some half baked reason for doing this. But the truth is their is no reason for destroying a patient's records. I guess his claims that he was getting ready to publish the results of his studies

    10. Continued from above:
      Disqus was acting up.

      were all just a delay tactic. Of course there's no way he could have written up the results of his clinical trials without giving and showing baseline information.

      Then there are all the other various shady things he's been caught doing. Like demanding patients buy their drugs at the pharmacy he owns at a 3,000X's mark up. Or giving patients chemo without their knowledge when they had specifically said they didn't want chemo, they only wanted the antineoplaston therapy. With this kind of practice how in the world would you know which drug was responsible for any positive result. How he has been able to get away with all this has left many scratching their heads. He's gotten very wealthy and certainly has the means to pay off the right people.

    11. Susan Im so surprise with your opinion! Ignorance is a bliss!

    12. So the best you can do is to hurl a vague insult implying that I'm ignorant?

      Are you a Burzynski supporter? Do you believe that someone who's been charging patients hundreds of thousands of dollars to be in his "studies" for over the last 35 years still hasn't published one scrap of evidence that his treatment works is legitimate?

      Now it has come to the attention of the authorities and the FDA (admitted by Burzynski himself) that he DESTROYED all of the beginning records of every patient that ever participated in one of his trials!

      Are YOU that ignorant? Do you understand the implications of just this one undisputed fact alone? This doesn't even begin to address all the other violations he's guilty of.

      As for fraud in the medical field. I never said it didn't exist. Any huge conglomeration of people from the thousands of pharma employees to all the thousands of researcher and scientists. The sheer size of all the people involved guarantees there will be some bad apples. But compared to other industries that employ so many I think science is one of the most honest. There are a number of reasons why this is true. For one thing a researcher's reputation for honesty is everything! Whether or not they can get funding is tied to their reputation for doing legitimate and honest work. Another factor is the nature of science and research itself. Everything is done very transparently and is constantly being peer reviewed. Mistakes or even fraud are picked up and reported.

      I never claimed that dishonesty and fraud absolutely didn't occur. But please point out to me this rampant fraud you think exists. I'm aware of the dozen or so drugs out of hundreds of thousands that are successfully used compared to a dozen that were a huge problem.

      So again, tell me why you called me ignorant?

    13. "The pharmaceutical industry is one of the most heavily regulated on the planet. If it were true that corruption was as rampant as you seem to think wouldn't we be hearing about it every day in the news?"

      Actually made me chuckle. Dear you dont have slightest idea and no I am not going to provide you any evidence for very obvious reasons. Try to be more critical in your views, maybe get to know someone who works in or for pharma (get drunk with them if possible). You might hear "sh!t that blows your mind :D "

  8. For what it's worth, i've done a bit more research through what i can find on the web. All i can conclude so far is that i'm quite indecisive about whether or not Burzynski is a scam or if his treatments actually do work.
    For me those questions are still open. Which is enough to decide, if the circumstance would arise, i would not opt for Burzynski.
    However i will not deny anyone's right to conclude otherwise.

    1. i applaud your sentiment. Burzynski chooses the avoid the burden of proof and testing that is built into the system to ensure the treatments given to the public are as safe and effective as possible. his endless trials and lack of publishing of his results is an insult to the scientific method and an assault on patient care

    2. Thanks. Well, yes it seems we can only guess as to why
      nothing has been published yet.

    3. i agree. but when someone (along with their friends and family) is put under the stress that this diagnosis introduces. they should not have to guess. this is more of a rhetorical question but what if "big pharma" or "mainstream" medicine employed the same tactics over the same period of time that Burzynski does. there would be massive calls for punishment in my opinion. so until he and his clinic show they are willing to play by the rules. he should not be allowed to inflict his "treatments" onto a desperate public.

    4. On the note of why he hasn't had anything published, I'm sure the 'powers that be' are able to block such material from reaching the public eye. Who's to say he hasn't tried.

    5. he is stopping his own trials before completion.

      Burzynski himself has not even claimed his trials were forced to close. and either way that is not proof his treatment works

    6. Burzynski has been running his fake clinical trials for 30 years+. So far only ONE has been completed and no results have been published. It looks now like he never intended to publish anything since he destroyed all of the patients beginning medical records such as MRI scans etc. In the time Burzynski has been charging patients to take part in his trials, more than 150 new cancer drugs have been approved.

      His own lawyer Mr. Jaffe deemed the clinical trials a “joke”, saying, “It was all an artifice, a vehicle we and the FDA created to legally give the patients Burzynski’s treatment.”

      Except it isn't a joke for the many patients who were duped by his offer of false hope. Only to die anyway leaving the family penniless and in debt.

    7. That a patient shouldn't have to guess, is certainly a valid point. Though, correct me if i am wrong in saying so, i think for the average patient with no medical or scientific background, a lot of guessing will be involved.
      Clearly, trust is a big issue here. Is Burzynski abusing it? It might look that way, but still i'm not sure. And i would only admire it if you or anyone else would know for sure. It does however makes me wonder why the FDA or any governmental instance doesn't.

    8. you state " think for the average patient with no medical or scientific background, a lot of guessing will be involved." i agree to a degree. a doctor and the pharmacist are required to explain the treatment if asked (in Canada anyway) case study is available as well as the trials. a second opinion is also available to the patient. Burzynski does not have these trial results or the peer reviewed publications to provide the patient so there is no fact checking available for the patient in any scientific way. as for the FDA he is abusing the trial privileges given to new treatments in order to circumvent the rules and that infuriates me and raises a huge red flag for me

    9. Ha! Are you kidding?! They would have his head on a stick!

  9. Does anyone else find it disturbing that a couple of scumbags like JP Morgan and JD Rockefellar owned over half of the pharmaceutical interest in the USA in the early 20th century? They also spent over $1 billion in advertising to "reeducate" the people. This is where the term "quackery" got tied to the holistic doctors. Connect the dots and you can see how modern medicine is one big hoax

    1. I don't think modern medicine is one big hoax at all. People are living longer than ever before, and it's not just because of better sanitation and living conditions. Life expectancy has continued to rise in spite of the fact that sanitation and living conditions haven't changed very much in the last 100 years.

      Today modern medicine can do things like:
      Preform operations through a couple of sm. holes via a scope, and the patient can go home the same day. Twenty years ago it would have meant a six inch incision and weeks in the hospital.

      More badly injured trauma patients are surviving today than ever before due to advancements in trauma medicine.

      Transplant of a kidney, liver, and heart are almost routine. Due to better anti rejection drugs they are living longer than ever before.

      Advancements in fertility research has led to more and more women being able to become pregnant. Not only become pregnant but maintain a pregnancy. Women even at advanced age are conceiving and giving birth to healthy babies. Due to genetic testing and ultrsounds prenatal problems can be picked up earlier and earlier.

      Micro surgery makes it possible in some cases to reattach limbs and repair tiny blood vessels.

      Many many diseases have been wiped out do to vaccines.

      Advances in cancer treatment have brought cure rates in the 80-90% range for cancers like lymphoma and leukemia. Overall cure rate for all cancers is up from 38% in 1970 to 68% 2013. New and vastly improved high beam radiation machines target only cancerous tissue while leaving good tissue alone.

      We have gone from crude X-rays in 1904 ... to sophisticated CT and MRI scanners along with hundreds of blood tests and treatments.

      The discovery of insulin means diabetics can treat a disease that was once always fatal.

      Antibiotics save lives every day. Before them people died from an infected tooth!

      Children are surviving through difficult deliveries in 2013. Many babies died during and right after childbirth in 1904.

      At the beginning of the AIDS epidemic patients were typically dead within 2 years of diagnoses. Today with the new anti-retrovirals they are alive 20 years and more.

      Heart disease deaths drop by 40%. Twenty-five years ago a patient having a heart attack was placed in a dark room and given morphine. Today due to several types of medications and medical interventions like stinting blocked vessels patients are surviving.

      I won't even mention the countless medications that improve health.
      These are just a few of the advancements in modern medicine.

      Now tell me again why modern medicine is a complete hoax?

    2. These are all great examples I have used to debate those who are overly critical of modern medicine. What amazes me is how some people can ignore all the evidence and still keep on with their crazy ideas. When I was young, a person that had had a heart attack was viewed with pity and it was generally felt that that person's life was finished. They were looked upon as the walking dead. I now know people who have had quadruple bypass surgery and are living normal productive lives and expect to do so for a long time. My niece underwent a kidney transplant and has since been married. Without it she would have most certainly died.

      I doubt that you will hear from this person and how he thinks modern medicine is a hoax. If you do it, it will be along the lines of how big pharma is all about money and if you don't believe that you're a brainwashed fool. I can't be sure but I would bet big money that this person would suddenly forget his stance on modern medicine if he was suffering from a heart attack and seek medical attention from an established medical practitioner.

      You've put up some great comments refuting Burzynski's medical claims. What's incredible is that there are still those who stubbornly hold onto their views that this charlatan is misunderstood and persecuted. There's just no figuring some people.

    3. Excellent post Jack 1952. Of course you are right about this person who is critical of mainstream medicine. If they were in a terrible automobil accident, sustained massive injuries, were taken to a trauma center and saved they might begin to look at modern medicine differently.

      I'm sure you've heard of Gary Null, one of the most well known, outspoken, and vehemently against modern medicine people you'll find. Well a couple of years ago he became deathly ill. Guess where he turned for medical care? Medical doctors. Interestingly the reason for his illness was due to his own supplements he was taking. They had been mistakingly manufactured with 1000X's the proper dose. How ironic. They fight so hard against any kind of regulations being applied to supplements too.

      The other telling thing about doug danger's post is that he's fixated on 2 people who had influence over medicine and pharmaceutical companies decades ago! Many of today's big pharms are foreign owned and to think someone like Rockefeller or Dupont still have any influence over medicine is preposterous beyond belief. Today only 1/3 of all physicians even belong to the AMA.

      Anyway I'm sorry I didn't intend for this to get so long. But thanks for your intelligent comments.

    4. the problem is, that even when you correct these people on their misconceptions, just like climate change deniers, anti GMOers and creationists they just move onto the next board and start spouting the same stuff all over again. they learn nothing.

    5. Climate change agreers may be pro GMO and agnostic. What else is in your bag?

    6. i said they were all the same, but listed them as seperate groups...you're going to have to find another hole to nitpick at.

    7. a no a.. so you are pro GMO? good luck with that. Judging by the amount of comments you post one here, you must be a paid shill for the chemical companies. And yes I am a farmer who is anti gmo. Now please educate me how great they are because all my research I have done tells me otherwise.

    8. Great...the paid shill argument. I can't tell you how many times I've read that one. Quite often it's the final resort of one who has no other argument but to call into question the integrity of his protagonist. Surely, you can do better than that.

    9. i wish i was getting some of that sweet shill money...i'd be able to do more than just sit on the internet in my free time lol

    10. Apparently, it's not free time. You're paid big bucks to advance an agenda. I got this from a reliable source...on an internet comment board. The best source available.

    11. you wouldn't mind passing that info on to my bank manager would you?

    12. so let me get this right...in your paranoid deluded little mind it's simpler to conclude that i've been paid to come here and disagree with you, than it is for me to have just naturally reached the opposite conclusion to you?

      I don't need to tell you how great they are...a billion people in india and africa found out how great they are when Norman Borlaug used GM crops to feed them and save them from starvation.

      Also i doubt you're a farmer because you seem woefully uninformed as to what GM is...i presume you don't grow carrots (which used to be purple) or Corn (which isn't a natural plant either).

      If you want an actual discussion then please engage, but if you just want to wave your green party pamphlet at me like a bible and tell me about your faith you can go away, because i'm sure the Jehovas witnesses will be ringing my door soon...let's be honest, they've got more evidence for Jehova than you have for your anti-GM beliefs.

    13. how wrong you are. Iv never been accused of not being a farmer before. This past summer I successfully grew Peruvian purple corn so don't tell me I don't know about different plants. The incas used to believe all corn should be purple and it only turned white or yellow from years of pollution.. And there is a huge difference between taking decades of cross pollinating to create hybrids and forcing genes somewhere they don't belong to create gmo's . Then forcing them into the marketplace a year later. I have seen first hand what decades of chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides have done to my soil and I am changing my ways so I can be a good steward of the land.
      Whats up with your rant about me being a jehova?
      Also what is your line of work? besides being an expert about everything

    14. Please point me to even one reputable study that proves GMO's are harmful (and not the French study that was retracted and proven to be severely flawed and even fraudulent).

      There are now thousands of independent research studies published by unaffiliated scientists on the safety of genetically modified foods. And the scientific consensus is increasingly clear: there is no convincing evidence that GMOs are any more likely to be harmful than conventionally bred varieties.

      So lets see your evidence for claiming they are harmful.

    15. You're the one that started with the accusations when you suggested i was a shill...So you can't whine about it when I start making accusations back at you!
      My rant also wasn't about you being a jehova...if you read it again properly you'll see i don't actually accuse you of that, i merely compared the ammont of evidence you have with the ammount of evidence your average JW knocks on your door with.
      So you've seen the damage that pesticides and stuff like that can do to the land, but at the same time are strongly against GM crops...the only kind of crops that can be developed to not need pesticides and fertilisers...you seem very confused about the whole thing, especially since the vast majority of these crops aren't actually intednded for growing in the west where land is fertile enough to not need it...It's being developed over here certainly, but nobody is forcing you to grow or eat it.

    16. Oh yeah Im real confused. Pesticide use has slightly decreased since the introduction of gmo's but since 2011 use has been increasing. Herbicide use has greatly increased since 1996. So your theory there don't hold much weight. If you want to use no fertilizer or pesticides it all starts with the soil. Healthy soil makes for stong plants that are very disease and insect resistant. You still haven't answered my question of what you do for work???

    17. if you can't see the corrolation between that and the mass hysteria that makes working with GM nigh on impossible then there isn't really much i can do to help you because you're purposefully refusing to see any other perspective and are just looking to confirm your pre determined biases.
      who i work for isn't really important, but since i get the feeling your reaching for your tin foil hat to call me a shill or set up some other sort of ad hominem/strawman to attack instead i'll tell you that i work for Royal Mail.

    18. If you where a scientist I might of had a little more respect for your opinion on the subject but if you are just a mail man I do not think you should be debating with me about farming with GMO's. I have been farming for over 30 years and you stick letters in a mailbox, so don't you ever call me confused on the subject again

    19. G'day doug, welcom to TDF.
      He's not a paid shill mate, a_no_n has been on TDF for awhile now, speaking his mind on multiple topics. Some I agree with him, some I don't, some I'm undecided on. Trolling him on a cancer thread isn't right hey, (the one you had deleted) Goto a GMO thread and debate him there if you wish. (you'll find some of his comments in GMO doco's if you look) You could start by pointing out when asked for proof that they're not safe, that as it is the GMO's that want to introduce something new, the onus is on them to prove it's not harmful, not for others to prove that it is. (Responsibility of evidence rests with those making the claim, which in this case the initial claim is that the GMO's are all safe on multiple fronts, i.e human consumption, environmental factors like cross-contamination, problems with pollinating insects, soil flora and fauna etc.) IF, as it seems at this point in time, the scientific consensus is they're safe, then you will need to look for evidence if you claim they're not.
      Or look at his logic for contradictions, e.g. how he said GMO's are developed for 'no pesticide or herbicide uses', but then says they're mostly NOT for use in the West, BECAUSE of soil fertility. The West has no pest or weed problems and doesn't use fertilizers? Or look at who grows GMO's now. The West, or elsewhere, and why? Or what GMO's have been developed to do and for what reasons (pesticide/herbicide resistance, lower water and nutrient requirements e.t.c), see if the numbers and uses match the claims.
      There are better ways to attack his position then his job or shill calling or trolling, most of which don't make your point but instead cost you credibility in this setting.

    20. so it was just a basic pathetic ad hominem attack you were setting up...Fair enough. If you're attacking me then presumably you can't attack what i'm saying.

      I'm not even a mail man, i'm in data entry.

      Plus i only have your word that you've been farming for thirty years...so please understand that i don't really believe you. Plus it doesn't really mean anything because if you are a farmer, you are also not a scientist and thus have absolutly no right to insult me for not being a scientist.

      if you can't argue your points without acting like a child maybe public forums aren't the place for you?

    21. Holistic doctors? Are you serious? Do you know what an oxymoron is?

      Connect the dots all you want, try to colour within the lines if it helps. And while you're doing that everyone else is having a grown-up conversation.

    22. That is not necessarily an oxymoron.

    23. depends on whether the holistic doctor in question is breathing in or not doesn't it.

    24. Is there a book or other source of information that explains this in more detail? I'm interested.

    25. doug danger linked you to the site "whaleto. You should be aware that this site is known to be a site that heavily promotes pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, and numerous alternative TO medicine treatments that have not been proven to work or have been disproven to be of any benefit. In other words the site promotes quackery and snake oil. Be highly suspect of anything you read there.

    26. yes, it's very easy to connect the dots, especially when some paranoid delusional is willing to draw a few extra dots in there to make the picture a bit clearer...especially if there are no dots there to begin with.
      It must be nice for you to not have to worry about evidence...

  10. If I was a doctor and somebody approached me about Burzynski, absolutely determined to go through with it, I would schedule some vacation or something and accompany my patient to observe exactly what's going on.

    1. From what I've read about this guy, there would be no way he would allow you anywhere near his clinic. A so called doctor who would destroy patient records really doesn't want anyone scrutinizing his work. He'd probably refuse to see your patient as well. Fear of documentation would indicate a fear of what that documentation might reveal.

    2. Then that would be enough for me to strongly advise against visiting him.

  11. CLEARLY this is about money. Doctors that sit on the board of finance will clearly see this as a business MONEY killer, not a cancer killer.

    The cancer is MONEY not the Cancer. People better wake up.

    1. Until you get cancer...then money becomes irrelevant. Which would you prefer, life or cash. I would think that cash would have little value if you don't have life. I wonder how much Steve Jobs would have paid to avoid his untimely death. A billion? Maybe not. Better to die rich than live poor.

    2. Jobs spent a fortune on alternative therapies...he said publicly just before he died that he wished he hadn't wasted precious time on them. If he'd ignored alternative therapies he would possibly still be with us today.

    3. Yes it's about money, but not necessarily the way you might think.

      Burzynski by his own account came to this country 40 years ago with $20.00 dollars in his pocket. Today he lives in a gated mansion with 16 bedrooms and 16 bathrooms valued at 7 million dollars. Now doctors earn a good living and the average yearly income for an oncologist is around 250K /year. Burzynski earns millions a year. How did he do this? He's not even a specialist. Meaning he neither board certified in Internal medicine or in Oncology. Well, here's how he's done it.

      He has been pretending to be doing clinical trials with his antineoplastons. He charges patients in the range of 7 grand per month for his treatment and patients are typically on treatment for a year or more until they die from the cancer. Yes most of them do die. He doesn't call this "charging to be a part of his clinical trial". That just isn't done by other doctors. In fact other doctors running clinical trials compensate the patient for their time and trouble , but NEVER charge for an EXPERIMENTAL treatment. So how does Burzynski get around this? Well, he calls it "a patient management fee. What he has done is to figure out a way to get money upfront from the patients. He doesn't even have to be bothered with billing the insurance companies, Not that they would pay any way. They don't pay for unproven treatments.

      So he's made a fortune running these fake trials. He's started more than 60 only completted one and hasn't published the results of all the thousands of patients he has treated.

      You have to ask yoursef why if a doctor thought he had found a great treatment for cancer, why wouldn't want to publish their research so everyone else could find out about it. By doing this it would open up the treatment for EVERYONE. But he hasn't published anything. Why? I think it's obvious that he doesn't have the evidence that would show that it works. So by continuring to do it the way he's been doing it he can continue to make enormous amounts of money off the desperate,.

      If you can think of a better reason for why he has done what he's done I would be very interested to hear it.

    4. So, what you are saying is that these people Interviewed are all lieing about the fact in a few months their cancer is gone or massively reduced?

      That is what you are saying. They are all liers. So what if he makes money. That is not the issue. The papers WHERE published if you watched the Documentary, they just through them out.

      Until people stop believing that Traditional Orthodox ways of doing things is the ONLY way, then things will never change.

      Look up a man in the 1600's that comited suicide because he was BEGGING his fellow patrons to simply WASHING THEIR HANDS befoe surgery. They ALL laughed at him ... millions died from germs ... this was before they understood Baterial infection...they had not the microscope.

      You ma'am either support the lies or are part of them, either way look up some information.

      It is about money, and therefore cover ups. No one can blame them ... we have lost our humanity... and soon we will lose the Earth because we do not take care of her the earth and she will shrug you and I off, regardless of money. Nature doesn't care.

      The time will come ... what do you have to say about your worry about money then? Doesn't mean we change over night, but to DENY the lies is the first step to get over ... then things sink in and MAYBE we can change in time to turn this sinking ship arround.

      1/2 americans on food stamps.... they are going to cut them and Unemployment beneifits in the next month... the Govt is preparing for unrest. Our culture is operating poorly.

    5. Have you looked at the link I provided above? Have you watched the Panorama documentary on Burzynski? Have you any idea how many people have died because of this charlatan and his false hope?

      Or is it the case that this propaganda piece is enough fuel for your persecution conspiracy theory?

    6. Sadly your last sentence sums it up pretty well. People like Matt will never take the time to read ANYTHING that even hints at not agreeing with his narrative on life. This assures that they will never change their view on anything. When Matt started talking about the government preparing for unrest I was entirely expecting him to start talking about those labor camps/prison camps that exist. I've heard it all before.

    7. I must have touched a Nerve here.

      I have consulted with some friends and let us do this as a Human Family. On the Internet to try and figure out what in the hell all this pain is about.

      This guy could be a hoax. He could have made enough money to hire a film crew and paid actors. I know that hoaxes are becoming more and more elaborate with FX and trained actors that maybe are not even in on the hoax as to appear legit.

      But, there are alternatives out there.

      This is my rule of thumb.

      The more it costs... the more research, PROOF and double triple wuatruple proof is required because anyone should buy into it.

      No matter how well formated and done the marketing crap is... sorry to have not being sensitive to other peoples pain.

      But, my point is that who can we trust? What can we believe anymore?

      Money taints Everything and it sucks.

    8. I'm responding to your post where you say I called Burzynski a murderer. That post seems to have been deleted.

      Anyway, no where in this thread have I called him a murderer! Yes it's entirely possible and in fact most certainly likely that his patients die from their disease because they are terminal. But you have missed the entire point! First of all not all of them are terminal some are but not all. The problem isn't that he is killing them with his treatment, although recently a little boy DID die as a direct result of the treatment, the problem is he is giving false hope with nothing to back it up. No evidence that his treatment works. Go read about all the screw ups in the way he has been running his clinical trials. Inflating positive results. Not reporting numerous overdoses from the drug. Destroying patient records. Lying to patients about everything from costs of treatment to potential side effects of treatment to not telling patients they were also receiving regular old chemotherapy. The list goes on and on. Even Mr. Jaffe Dr. B's OWN attorney admitted in his book that Burzynski's clinical trials were a complete sham set up to keep charging patients exorbitant amounts of money. It's sickening. So many facts about the man and how he's been scamming cancer victims, and STILL the alternative TO medicine and anti- mainstream medicine crowd defends him. It boggles the mind.

    9. lol, i love the way you go onb about conspiracy theories and how it's all about the money for evil big pharma, but then fail to notice that these snake oil salesmen are building vast empires out of selling you their phony products.

      nobody pulls the wool over your eyes better than yourself eh?

    10. "Yes most of them do die"
      Perhaps this statement is right, but once again, i'd like to ask: how do you know?

    11. How do I know if his patients have died?

      I'm not claiming to know the outcome for every single patient treated by Burzynski. But the patients that are writen about on the web site "The Other Burzynski Patient Group" have either been documented in newspapers, or on the patients very own blogs like Caring Bridge. It is these diaries writen by the patients and in the case of children writen by their parents that tell in great detail what happened to these patients.

    12. I do understand, but do you you know how many patients he has? I couldn't find any info on that.

    13. because sharing medical information is illiegal. However if you look on Whatstheharm.net
      you'll find long list of people killed and maimed by alternative therapies, all catalogued and backed up by links to the corresponding news reports about those deaths.

    14. Thanks for the info, but you are missing the point.

    15. forgive me for being a bit dim but how exactly? you asked for evidence and I explained why there might not be the exact info you want, and offered up in it's place a source that is a database most likely to have the information you asked for.

    16. The point being that if nobody knows how many patients Burzynski has or had (i 'm not sure if that constitutes as sharing medical information?), how can susan g claim that "most of them do die"?
      I did visit the link you provided, alas, i didn't find the information, or it must be that i overlooked it somehow?

    17. it's entirely probable that there's nothing related exactly to this issue on it...it's not a comprehensive list, just the best one to hand.

      however,Fair enough I get what you mean now, i was missing the point lol.

    18. and yet they allowed vaccines to practically iradicate polio and other childhood illnesses, which were huge money makers.

      your conspiracy falls apart after a few minutes of research

  12. here is an open question:
    why should we not hold all treatments to the same standards? now before anyone answers i would like to add. if alternative treatments do not need peer review and full trials before being given to the public. why do conventional treatments need to do this? why can't "big pharma" do the same?

    1. Good question.
      But what are the right standards? This world is a changing place, so essentially the question of standards is a struggle between progressive and more conservative tendencies.
      Yes, truly an open question. However, we do need to decide somehow.

    2. The right standard is that it, or the method works.
      Burzynski currently appears to use technique over specific drugs as is the standards for FDA approved treatments, cut, fry and poison.

    3. Works how? What standard do you use to decide it works? And who's standards are right?

    4. That is an excellent question! That cracking sound you hear is the FDA bending over backward for the last 30 some years, allowing Burzynski to run his never ending clinical trials. He has started some 60 clinical trials and only finished one! He has yet to publish one scrap of evidence that proves his treatment is safe or effective. There can only be one of two reasons why Burzynski hasn't publish his results.

      1. His treatment works but he hasn't published because he doesn't want to share the knowledge with many and treat MANY cancer patients.


      2. His treatment DOESN'T work and if he published his findings everyone would know it doesn't work, but he wants to keep making big$$$$$ charging patients to be in his "clincal trials so he doesn't publish. This is what he's been doing for more than 30 years!

    5. Straight to the chase. Well said.

    6. Alright, can i ask you how you know that?

    7. I'm not sure what exactly you are questioning. Everything I've said is public record. You can access all of this info on Clinical trials. gov. It will tell you the status of the trial.

      I can only tell you what Burzynski has been allowed to get away with is unpresidented. I know of no other doctor who has been allowed to open more than 60 clinical trials, CHARGE the patient obscene amounts of money to take part in them (in the real medical world patients are never charged, in fact they are often compensated for their trouble). Only ONE of these trials was finished.

      As to date Burzynski hasn't published any data proving his treatment works. A very disturbing fact has come to light. When the FDA was inspecting his clinic and how he was conducting his trials, the inspectors ask to see the begining scans, x-rays, and cancer tests for the patients enrolled in the trials. Burzynski told the inspectors he had DESTROYED every single begining i.e starting point records! He destroyed patients records! I guess he never intended to publish his trials since it would be impossible without the begining of treatment records. I don't know if you understand the significance of this. When a doctor alters or destroys patient records it's game over. I wonder what Dr. B was hiding? Of course all of this can be read about on the FDA web site.

    8. Yes, i was asking for information on the clinical trials. As a non American, i had no idea how to get to that. Thanks for providing.

    9. But isn't his treatment restricted by the fda to only people who were not responsive to Radiation or chemotherapy? I could be wrong

    10. Well as of now Burzynski's trials with antineoplastons have been stopped. He is no longer allowed to accept any new patients.

      One of the many reasons the FDA pulled the plug on his trials was that he was taking patients into his trials who had just come off conventional treatment. In some cases only a few days before! The reason patients must wait a few months after stopping conventional treatment is to make sure they don't still have a positive response from the conventional treatment. This is the only way to determine of they truly failed all other treatment.

      When you are studying a treatment you are obviously trying to find out if it works. If you take patients right into a study and the patient has a positive response to the treatment you would have no way of knowing which treatment was responsible. Burzynski wasn't waiting the specified amount of time. This is a big problem but like I said it was one of many big problems with Burzynski's research.

    11. So they send him terminal patients for the most part who didn't respond to the official treatment.. and they want him to wait a few months even when the people's lives are hanging in the balance. I understand your point which is very valid.. but I also wonder If I could watch those patients they sent to me (if I was in his shoes) whither over a few months for the sake of proving what I know works works. I would much rather save the life and take my chances... this is coming from my non-doctor/ layman perspective.

    12. For the record not many of the patients who find their way to Burzynski's clinic were sent there by their physicians. Most doctors have nothing but scorn for the man and the way he does business. There was an interesting article about Burzynski in USA Today a few weeks ago. You could probably get it on line. They interview a doctor at Houston Childrens Hospital. She describes all the children that have shown up in the ER in a coma at death's door. They were all on his antineoplaston treatment. There are very real and toxic effects from the drug. This doctor said she had never seen even one of the children survive their cancer.

      I completely understand your sympathy for the patient who is dying and must wait 2-3 months before starting another trial. The time varies depending on the type of treatment they are coming off of. But I'm sure you can understand why it has to be this way. If not no one would ever know if a particular drug really worked. Burzynski got into a lot of trouble a couple of years ago with the Texas Medical Board. He was giving regular old chemo along with the antineoplastons to patients and not telling them! How in the world would one know which drug was responsible if there were a positive response? I personally thought he should have lost his license for that little stunt. Many of these patients didn't want chemo but unbeknownst to them they got it anyway. Another thing he got caught doing was making patients buy all their drugs from the pharmacy HE owns. Conflict of interest? He got caught charging a patient $3,000.00 for a drug they could have gotten at the corner pharmacy for $176.00!

      I do understand your wanting to just do whatever to try to save a life, especially if it was your child. These are the hopes and fears that the Burzynski's prey and count on. Let me ask you a few questions and tell me if this sounds like a legitimate researcher? He opens some 60+ clinical trials and completes only one. Publishes none of the results, and has been doing this for over thirty years. He has never shown the world what the results are from his treatment. If you had discovered this amazing treatment for cancer, especially for brain cancer in children wouldn't you want to SHARE your evidence with the world so MANY can be cured? Or would you NOT publish your findings and just keep charging a much smaller number of people hundreds of thousands of dollars?

    13. i wholeheartedly agree.

    14. There's only a 5% chance of anyone benefiting from Chemotherapy....yet 50% of all Cancer patients receive it. Lots of painful useless treatment ...while Burzyski has a painless treatment with better results.then you say IF HE PUBLISHED HIS FINDINGS.....he has been in front of the Supreme Court 4-5 times. You bet his findings have been Published ...yet not in the respectful manner he would have expected . He is saving "unsaveable" Glacoma patients. Dr Burzynski deserves great respect. He has discovered a new means of curing Cancer....to the dismay of the current established system of Cancer Care . If his Antineoplastons work on you....you will heal from cancer...painlessly.The United States Health Dept filed 11 Patent Applicatiions to challenge the already Patented Antineoplastons Patent owned by Dr Burzynski solely. That unethical aggressiveness tells you right there that Dr Burzyski's formulals are of great concern to the standard system of Cancer Care. They fear him !!

    15. -can you provide proof for " There's only a 5% chance of anyone benefiting from Chemotherapy....yet 50% of all Cancer patients receive it."?

      - can you show me these published papers?

      -can you prove "He has discovered a new means of curing Cancer"?

      these are some major claims please provide the proof necessary for all to benefit from him.

    16. I don't know where you are getting your stats from, but they are incorrect. Only a 5% chance of benefiting from chemo? Here are a few facts for you that are easily documented. It's true that chemo doesn't work for some types of cancer such as lung. But for some it is VERY effective! Do you know how many children diagnosed with leukemia 60 years ago survived? Zero, nada, none. Today with chemo the cure rates are up around 85-90%! For some types of lymphomas and testicular it's 90%! Today a woman diagnosed with breast cancer has an overall 80% chance of successful treatment.

      The overall cancer cure rates continue to improve every year. In 1970 the overall cure rate was 38% today it's 68%. Straight-line projections indicate that the survival rate will rise to 80% by 2015.5.

      Burzynski has opened 60 clinical trials. He has only finished ONE. He HAS NOT published the findings of any of them. He has published a few case studies which are nothing even close to publishing the results of a clinical trial. He's had more than 30 years to do so. What is he hiding? If it's true that he's found a cure for cancer wouldn't the ethical thing to do be to publish the evidence that it works so that everyone could benefit from it? Why would you just keep it for yourself? No one else has been able to reproduce the same results that Burzynski says he's gotten.

      Burzynski's antineoplaston therapy is NOT side effect free. It has many side effects and some of them like hypernatremia can be lethal. At least one little boy died as a direct effect from the antineoplastons. It is far from painless! Patients must have a catheter placed directly into a blood vessel in the heart. These catheters often become infected.

      The bottom line is NO ONE knows if Burzynski's treatment works. All he has given is patient testimonials, You Tube videos, informercial movie, and him saying it works! Sorry but this just isn't acceptable. If big pharma said here take this drug it's safe and it works, but oh yeah we haven't tested it properly what would you say to that? Why isn't Burzynski held to the same standards as every other doctor and researcher? No the medical establishment and the FDA don't fear him. They are disgusted by him and the unethical way he's practiced medicine.

  13. I know that many people are gullible, and that sick people are particularly open to wild suggestions, but how was Burzynski able to get away with this for so long? Both this documentary and his other
    promotional materials are quite deceiving. Two examples:

    His treatments did not pass any FDA clinical trials. As far as I could find, he started over 60 trials. Some have since been abandoned, and only one has been completed. Yet I could find no write up of the trial results. There certainly is no published paper. Has anybody seen anything of the sort? At this point, I'll take even un-published un-reviewed summary of trial results.

    Burzynski claims that he is treating people as a part of FDA approved procedure. This is false. The clinical trials cover only a small number of people with specific conditions, where the use of an experimental medication could potentially lead to some objective results. And even this has been put on hold. As of September, FDA banned him from starting new trials or admitting new patients into existing trials. This decision was based on review of his procedures and facilities earlier in the year.

    They found that new patients were admitted to clinical trials based on "provisional" approval by a person who was not a doctor. Based only on their consent, and without reviewing their medical history. And they were immediately treated with a medication that has a history of potentially life threatening side effects. And they were allowed to self-medicate. And evidence of gross over-medication was ignored. And evidence of side effects was ignored. And even if the patient eventually got better, this could not contribute to the clinical trial, because pre-trial MRI/CT scans were not performed or the results were misplaced.

    Does this sound like a brave maverick doctor try hard to persuade the establishment, or a charlatan swindling sick people? You decide!

    1. Did you not hear that Big Pharma and the FDA have been in bed with each other since the 90's??

    2. Is there any action by Burzynski and his ilk that you would be unable to rationalize as evidence of conspiracy between FDA and the Big Pharma (whoever that is)?

    3. no and I am a nurse also. BFD

    4. If you are a nurse then I'm sure you understand the implications of altering or destroying a patients records right? So where would you stand if you were told that Burzynski destroyed the beginning scans, labs, medical records of every single patient enrolled in his clinical trials? By the way this really happened.

    5. arguments from authority need not apply

    6. And can you tell me why you think the FDA is in bed with Big Pharma?

      While it's true that there have been a few disasters with approved drugs I don't believe the pharms are as evil as you believe them to be. The pharmaceutical companies are the most heavily regulated business on the planet. Some times the bad side effects from a drug aren't apparent until millions have taken the drug over time. When people have been harmed they are generously compensated.

      The FDA is a huge institution. They are responsible for approval of all drugs for human and animal. Medical equipment from tongue blades to complicated scanners like MRI, C-SCAN, lasers, and ultra-sound mach. They are also in charge of safety and quality of food, liquor, water, cosmetics, supplements, tobacco, and alcohol. They must also approve all new treatments and protocol for treating diseases like cancer and diabetes. In other words it's a HUGE institution that's job is to keep the public SAFE. You might not agree with their decisions on everything, but they are all done openly and transparently. The public is invited and encouraged to attend all meetings. All approval meetings are video tapped and can be viewed online by the public. It is NOT a secretive organization as the conspiracy element thinks it is.

      The FDA has a difficult job. If they approve something too quickly there might be problems with it that weren't known. If they approve something to slowly it might not get to a patient who really needed it in time to help them. They are often in the position of "damned if they do and damned if they don't. But overall I believe they do a pretty decent job of protecting the public.

      Your original claim that the FDA and Pharms are in bed with each other is silly. The FDA isn't a business. They are government employees paid by tax dollars. They have no monetary incentive to act in any particular way. A recent change was made to help get drugs approved more quickly. The slow approval was always because the FDA didn't have the staff to get things through more quickly. Now the drug companies can pay an additional fee to get drugs through faster. But this fee goes to pay the additional FDA employees.

      Don't you think if there were some big conspiracy between the FDA and any of the numerous drug companies and research facilities that at least one of these nefarious dealings would have been exposed?

      Go pick up a copy of the Physician's Desk Reference.It's several thousands of pages thick. With THOUSANDS of prescription and over the counter drugs that have been approved. Literally thousand and thousands of medications. Now, think about how many truly catastrophic drugs that really caused harm to a significant number of people have there been? Maybe a dozen? I think they've done a pretty decent job.

    7. Who is aam641, sounds like a funny name to me? Where are the links to his accusations? Why should we trust an anonymous post?

    8. You're kidding right? You're questioning the posters credentials when all he is doing is stating some facts that the most cursory of Google searches will reveal to be true. You can't honestly be that daft ...

      Are you one of the cuckoos who thinks "Big Oil" crushed the electric car by any chance?

    9. Hey jaberwokky don't be talking common sense. And don't be talking easily provable FACTS either. You know that upsets them. You cut that out you.

    10. I can't help myself sometimes, I know it makes them bark louder but I just have this wicked side to me :/

    11. Who is "bfearn"? That sounds like an extremely suspicious name to me. Why should we trust a name that looks anonymous. And where is your pic in that blank avatar? Show yourself! What are you hiding? Who are you shilling for? Hmm?

    12. Yes, we do decide. That's the whole point, isn't it?
      An organisation like the FDA certainly has it's necessary function,
      and it should warn people about dangers, But the FDA allowing or denying permission to do what we decide, i'm sorry, thats just one step to far.

    13. You are welcome to take whatever chemicals you can find. FDA only restricts what can be prescribed by licensed doctors, what can be passed for a medication.

    14. Really? What if i would like to find an antineoplaston cocktail ?

    15. Perhaps you could drink your own urine seeing as that's where it comes from. Puts a whole new meaning to taking the piss :)

    16. Everything you are saying is correct. Are you aware of the fact that the FDA discovered when inspecting the clinc in early 2013 that he claims to have destroyed every single begining scan, MRI, beginning tumor measurement of every single clinical trial participant! He DESTROYED their begining records, I guess someone never intended to publish any clinical trial results. Just unbelievable. This is undefensible . There is no justification for destroying a patients medical records. Never.

  14. I'm glad your alive Sammy but these two treatments have been around a long time - yes better but nothing new. Why not?

  15. Fight the pharma mafia

  16. I will never subscribe to the ridiculous notion that cures for cancer are not being aggressively researched and tested. Quite simply, if not for the Chemo, Radiation I received in 2008...I would be dead.

    1. That's good for you Sammy but just because you would not do some terrible thing does not means that no one would. Would you start a war that killed over a million people based on false info? No only did someone do this but millions of people supported him!! Never say never.

    2. seriously...you're going to compare receiving life saving treatment to starting a war?

      False info? is that what you call decades of cataloged peer reviewed study?

  17. the pharma industry reps know full well of other even more effective natural or not cancer treatments that they themselves and their family use. the whole chemo and radiation is just a big charade for the masses, to be able to sell they poisons to, and from time to time they manage to sacrifice a public figure like an actor, or other to reinforce their belief to the public... it is impossible to die of cancer if you address the root cause, which not even bruzinsky does, he manages it otherwise, and when he will address it he will have a far better success rate, that being in the wast majority of the patients toxicity.

    i am speaking from my experience with it after being offered chemo, denied flat out. Seriously how can you thing that you can restore a debilitated immune system, by injecting radioactive waste and blasting a body with radiation, it does not make any sense, not only that but the alopatic medicine scientific studies themselves show it so very clearly. do your homework on pubmed. the immune system has to be supported through detoxification and nourishment, and of course in cancer's case the various medicinal herbals depending on which type it is. that is indeed the key of the most effective natural cancer treatments see: Gerson, Beljanski, Essiac, Budwig, Cayce, Rife, Hoxsey, CBD oil, BEC5, Cancema, LifeOne... Arise and Shine.... i did myself a cocktail of few of them, and it work out extremely

    well, i will not enter into any polemic here because it is useless, the only thing i will say at the end is. It does not matter what it is, how it is called, detoxify, nourish, stop eating anything processed, fresh produce and juices only from bio-dynamic farming, and you will be amazed of what levels of health you will achieve, and lastly address the emotional/spiritual aspect of the disease (eft, recall healing, ayahasca; ibogaine...whatever floats your boat) and everything will be just fine.

    1. Well, there was once a time were phlebotomy was considered
      a healthy procedure for quite an array of diseases. Something we shake our heads to, today.
      I strongly believe that in the future the same way will be looked upon to chemo and radiation.
      When is the future? It's already here.

    2. I don't care for that comparison. Unlike phlebotomy, chemotherapy and radiation actually often work.
      A better comparison would be the willow bark. It has been used for centuries and it actually kinda works. But modern research has been able to refine it into aspirin, which is more effective and has fewer side effects. I expect similar improvements from chemotherapy.

    3. Yes, aspirin is more effective. but i think you turned it around about the side effects.
      I don't think it's a good comparison

    4. OK, I see your point. How about ancient vs. modern abortifacients? Various natural approaches (pennyroyal) are quite effective, but only in quantities approaching the fatal dose. In comparison, modern medications (Mysoprostol) based on knowledge of body chemistry are very effective and have few side effects.

    5. To be honest, i don't really know that much about abortion inducing substances. But if you think it's a good comparison, i'll trust you for it.

      But to the point, you expect improvement from chemotherapy. I don't see how.

    6. New medication will be tailored to better target specific cancer cells and do less harm to all other cells.

    7. he says whilst ignoring decades of irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

    8. Cancer isn't one single disease. It is more than 200 different diseases with different causes/ genetic mutations and it has many different causes. Every treatment you listed has been shown to do nothing to treat cancer.

      Don't you think if any of these "natural" cancer treatments worked they would be using them in countries that provide free health care for its citizens? Think of the money they would save.

      The fact is you can't cure cancer with herbs and spices. LOL! Cancer is a formidable opponent. Cancer is the bodies own cells going hay wire. That is why the immune system doesn't recognize it as foreign. Because it's not! It's the bodies own cells. Cancer is an incredibly complicated disease.

    9. How in the world can you know that drug reps and their families have and are using effective cancer cures and withholding them from the rest of the world? Ignoring that such a position shows an incredible lack of knowledge of the workings of cancer, I cannot imagine where you could find and who would keep such records and statistics. Maybe they're all going to the good Dr. B., but isn't he the one who destroyed patient records?

      You present a nice little story about your bout with cancer, but it means nothing whatsoever unless you have detailed charts on the progression and remission of your cancer. Then you couple this with the charts of countless other cancer patients who have gone through the same treatments that you have and present them so everyone and anyone can examine them. An anecdote over the web by an anonymous poster is a long way from the proof that I or any reasonable person should accept.

  18. If a viewer missed the parts about The Skeptics, he or she could only be falling prey to the commentators paid to trash this therapy. That's crazy. Chemo and radiation are themselves carcinogenic and, in chemo's case, poisonous. There is no money for big pharma and cancer centers if a cure for cancer is found and that remains the reason that our loved ones get cut up and poisoned until (most) die anyway after a long bout with fighting the side effects of FDA approved treatments. There's another DVD out, Forbidden Cures, and it is well worth viewing. Every family member of a cancer victim should be up in arms and outraged. Just another area in our lives where we are duped into corporate propaganda designed to increase its bottom line.

    1. The movie "Forbidden Cures" is a proverbial quackfest! They gives credence to charlatans like Tulio Simoncini who claims ALL cancer is a fungus! LOL! His treatment for cancer before his patients started dying, was soda bicarb. He was arrested for manslaughter and fraud, was convicted, his medical license permanently removed and he was sent to prison. But this movie features him prominently as a doctor who is curing cancer. This is the quality of medical healers presented in this movie. I certainly wouldn't recommend this to someone I cared about.

    2. So do you get your perceived intelligence from "movie land" ?

      Chemo and radiation may not be the best cure/treatment of cancer. But it is at this stage the best we have at this time.

      The biggest issue to me is how the US govt.(FDA) has allowed itself to be manipulated by charlatans when so many lives are at risk.