While I'm using my blog as an announcement platform today, I would be remiss not to mention that tomorrow is Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski's birthday, and the Skeptics for the Protection of Cancer Patients are still raising money for St. Jude's Children's Hospital in order to try to get Dr. Burzynski to do something good for cancer patients for a change. The beauty of it is that, even if Burzynski declines, as is likely, there'll still be a nice big donation to a real cancer center that does real good for children with cancer, which is in marked contrast to Burzynski. Harriet Hall has joined in the campaign and is auctioning off a beautiful, hand-knit afghan, knitted by the SkepDoc herself, the proceeds to go to the campaign. If you want to bid on it, it's on Ebay and can be found here. If you don't want an afghan (although why you wouldn't, I have no idea), you can donate to the campaign here.
While I'm mentioning Dr. Burzynski again, a reader named W. Kevin Vicklund pointed something very interesting out in the comments of this post. Basically, the Burzynski Clinic has updated its webpage on clinical trials, and the new language is quite different from the old language:
Here's a comparison of the old language vs. the new language on the Burzynski Clinical Trials page. [Items italicized and in square brackets] are removed, whilebolded items are new.
[Introduction to]What are Clinical Trials?
Clinical trials (also clinical research, clinical studies) are research studies to determine whether experimental treatments, or new ways of using known therapies, are safe and effective. Carefully conducted clinical trials are necessary to find treatments that work in people and ways to improve health.
There are four phases of clinical trials in cancer treatment:
Phase I trials: to determine the safety of a new treatment
Phase II trials: to determine whether a certain kind of cancer responds to a new treatment
Phase III trials: to verify whether a new treatment is better than standard treatment
Phase IV trials: to find more specific information about a new treatment that has been already approved for use in patients
[Antineoplastons - Subject of Clinical Trials
Antineoplaston treatment is an experimental therapy offered by the Burzynski Clinic, currently available only within clinical trials.
Currently, there is 1 open clinical trial on Antineoplastons (as of January 2012). The clinical trial is registered with the FDA and result of the trial is reported to the FDA on an annual basis.
Read more about Antineoplaston Therapy]
Clinical trials conducted in our Clinic are FDA approved protocols. A protocol determines what will be done in a clinical trial and why. It outlines how many patients will participate in a clinical trial, type and frequency of medical testing, treatment plan, monitoring requirements and the evaluation plan. [Our staff physicians strictly follow the protocol and submit periodical reports on the progress of the study for FDA evaluation.]
Enrollment in Clinical Trials
The clinical trials encompass a variety of brain tumors in both children and adults. [Over the last ten years more than 2,000 patients have participated in the clinical trials on Antineoplastons.] Only patients eligible to enroll in clinical trials may receive Antineoplaston treatment under the study. [Ineligible patients may receive approval to enroll, from the FDA on an individual basis.]
To find out if you qualify for enrollment in clinical trials, please contact our Cancer Information Specialist.
[The list of open clinical trials is available at Clinicaltrials.gov (the FDA official clinical trials data bank). For the most recent information please contact the Burzynski Clinic directly.
The official reports on the progress of the clinical trials on Antineoplastons are presented regularly by Dr. Burzynski and his associates at various medical symposia and conferences. Mid-term reports from the clinical research are regularly published in peer-reviewed journals and subject-related scientific books.
View the most recent scientific publications.
Clinical Trials: Antineoplastons in Treatment of Brainstem Glioma
Orphan Drug designation
In September 2004, the FDA granted Orphan Drug designation for Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 for the treatment of Brainstem Glioma. The Orphan Drug designation has been extended to all Gliomas
The FDA's orphan drug program is intended to encourage research, development and approval of products for treatment of diseases that affect fewer than 200,000 patients in the United States per year and provide a significant therapeutic advantage over existing treatments.
Orphan drug designation enables the Burzynski Research Institute to apply for assistance from the Office of Orphan Product Development in guiding the drug through the regulatory approval process.
Phase III clinical trial - Brainstem Glioma
The protocol for the Phase III trials is ready. Phase III trials are expected to start in 2012.
Last Update: January 2012]
Rather interesting, don't you think? At least, I thought so, which is why I mentioned it and reproduced Kevin's comment in full. It looks as though in 2013 Burzynski has scrubbed mention of the infamous phase III clinical trial and the use of sodium phenylbutyrate, which, as I have pointed out, is what one antineoplaston is. Overall, the new Burzynski clinical trials page is much more stripped down, doesn't mention a list of open clinical trials (mainly because, as far as I can tell, few, if any, of the more than 60 clinical trials Burzynski has registered at ClinicalTrials.gov are currently open to accrual; certainly the phase III trial is not). One wonders whether this change in the Burzynski Clinic's clinical trials page means that the phase III trial is, as they say, kaput. Of course, I always suspected that it would never open anyway and was simply a way for Burzynski to make it look to patients as though the FDA has enough confidence in antineoplastons as cancer therapy to let him do a clinical trial. It all makes me wonder once again how Burzynski has gotten away with his shadow clinical trials game for around 20 years now and with administering a therapy with no convincing evidence of efficacy against the tumors he's treating for 35 years.
If ever there was a place that desperately needed some light shined into its dark recesses, it's the Burzynski Clinic.
I wonder if Burzynski is finally giving up the pretense of researching antineoplastons. Perhaps there's been pressure exerted to either report results or quit pretending to run clinical trials.
I had earlier said there was a second page under the Clinical Trials heading. Using the wonders of the Internet Archive, I have confirmed my memory of what it was. He has completely eliminated the page on antineoplastons.
It looks like the increased scrutiny is having an effect! I guess Eric Merola's little propaganda clips aren't as convincing as he'd like to believe. Keep up the pressure Orac - the more attention Burzynski courts, the more opportunity there is to point out his many questionable claims and practices.
I think maybe the tide is turning against Dr Burypatients. Yesterday, on a web design forum that I belong to, somebody posted a link to the Burzynski film (the first one) asking "Anybody heard of this doctor?". About six of us weighed in, all with negative comments about Dr B (and I posted links); one added the experience of a friend who had been treated at the Burzynski clinic, which was the usual story of being sucked dry of money and dying anyway. Nobody even tried to defend him.
So, yes, I think people generally are starting to cotton on to his scam.
That was a very good catch, Kevin.
I wonder if I should sarcastically feign ignorance of the trial and point out how there's no mention on Burzynski's site if some altie troll tries to use it against me.
Burzynski's videos really need something equivalent to the viewer companions that came out to debunk 9/11 videos like Loose Change.
God. 2000 paying patients. No meaningful publication. What a waste.
I've already donated to the Burzynski Birthday St. Jude's Hospital Fundraiser, in memory of Amelia Saunders who died two weeks ago, after receiving *treatment* at Dr. B's clinic. St. Jude's is high on my list of charities that I always support.
Great work Kevin Vicklund! I nominate you for the first annual "Shut Burzynski Down Award".
It seems to me he's doing the same thing as Livestrong did. Do one thing for a while, surround yourself with buzzwords and acolytes, and then abruptly, switch directions- but don't disabuse anyone of the notion that you're still doing what you used to do (natural, non-toxic, not-chemo - not that any of that was true, either, but after being called out by the FDA on the advertising...)
(Livestrong hasn't, since 2005, contributed to cancer research, they switched the branding to "Cancer Awareness".)
Off topic: Does anyone have a good email address for ToddW? (Tweek75 on Twitter)
I'd like to exchange ideas and information with him instead of just Twitter notes. Thanks!
Happy Birthday Stan! I've never been a big fan of Burzynski. He needs peer-reviewed publications.
Off topic: Does anyone have a good email address for ToddW?
Perhaps you should take the obvious step of looking at his blog.
@ Jay Gordon: Todd W's blog link here..
So how about putting you money to work by donating to the Burzynski Birthday/St. Jude's Children's Hospital fundraiser?
God. 2000 paying patients. No meaningful publication. What a waste.
That's 2000 paying patients since the last time he managed to open a new trial. The old cancermed (precursor to clinicaltrials.gov) showed that he started 72(!) Phase II trials in the 1990s. As near as we can tell, he has not published the final results of any of those trials.
He needs more than that, Dr Gordon. He needs tar and feathers, IMHO. He's a modern-day equivalent of Dr Brinkley. (Okay, antineoplastons aren't as insane as implanting goat testicles into people, but much of his business practices are eerily similar.)
Methinks Jay is growing tired of my correcting his erroneous Twitter statements.
That is one fine looking afghan!
Did anybody watch the video Pete Cohen did with Burzynski's lawyer, Ric Jaffe? They are a slick bunch, that's for sure.
Jaffe says that Burzynski is an egomaniac who is absolutely convinced that he is right. He also says that he has other clients who also have huge egos and believe they are right--but Jaffe believes in Burzynski. In my opinion, he does not say this very convincingly.
Great work Kevin Vicklund! I nominate you for the first annual “Shut Burzynski Down Award”.
And let's hope there's no need for a second annual award...
Jaffe also represents another cancer quack, Dr. Revici. Does that mean he believes in Burzynski more than Revici? A weird thing for a lawyer to state publicly.
Sorry, I just posted this on the wrong thread. We have a wealth of Stan threads here! It's more relevant and was intended to be posted here:
I wonder how much this reverse-turn on Phase III will affect the Merola commercial. Isn’t that one of the centerpieces of the sales pitch? In the trailer, Merola’s own annoying, toneless, amateur voice says something like “no other mortal human, ever on the planet, has entered Phase III trials without any funding….” blah blah blah.
I agree we should now ask the Stanbois to “show us on his website where it says there’s a Phase III trial. Nope, sorry, you lose, it ain’t there…”
@ Mark: Jaffe also represents Hugh Fudenberg and a boatload of "nutrition" and chiropractic organizations, as well:
Fudenberg had his medical license suspended for illegally obtain controlled substances, and is raking in big money for "consultations", now that he is retired:
@Calli - you forget to add being ridden out of town on a rail afterwards.
I wonder how much this letter from the FDA had to do with the significant chages to Burzynski's website?
Jaffe's website is actually quite interesting: I looked at it yesterday. He posts mini-essays on several subjects, including, ironically enough, a relatively reasonable piece against homeopathy. (I guess it's competition to Burzynski's products...)
Once again, you 'da man. That letter must have flown under the alt-world radar. I would imagine guys like Mercola and Adams would have jumped all over it with more spittle-inflected screeds like "Once again the FDA is after Stan...preventing him from making claims (I mean, lying) to prospective customers who decide on cancer treatments based on reading promotional websites for said treatments..."
The essay on Jaffe's site concerns naturopaths, not homeopathy (my error). Now that I reread it, I understand why it's there. Jaffe is advising against using devices like the Zapper and warns against naturopaths precisely because these appeal to the type of customer who would be investigating Burzynski. They are the competition.
I found this to be the ultimate irony at the end of Jaffe's essay on "unlicensed practitioners":
The absolute worst thing a naturopath, (or any unlicensed practitioner) can do is to tell a terminal cancer patient that the treatment will or could cure the patient, or make them live longer. Prosecutors hate this, and they will leave no stone unturned until the practitioner is out of business and/or in jail.
Ain't that just so cute coming from Burzynski's lawyer...?
Orac spent two days highlighting that letter back in November (7th and 8th)*. If they missed it, it's because they weren't paying attention.
*which is my subtle way of declining any credit for this info
It's also nice that Wikipedia continually updates (January 20, 2013), the Burzynski Clinic entry to include the latest warning letter from the FDA, with a link to Orac's blog:
Editing clinical trials info on Burzynski's website probably had nothing to do with OPDP. After all, the letter doesn't explicitly forbid posting information on imaginary pubs and trials.
@ Marc Stephens Is Insane:
I looked at Jaffe's website, including the book (!!!!!!)
Emanuel Revici was another cancer quack from Romania ( see Quackwatch's 'Questionable Cancer Therapies' page) : he died in 1998; I'm not sure if his clinic is still operational but like Dr B, he had *interesting ideas* about urine as well that have not been substantiated by research. He was struck off and has also attained a bit of cult status as a brave maverick ; he has the grand distinction of having initiated/ enabled the career of woo-meister, Gary Null, at the Institute of Applied Biology ( his own private woo-factory) in the 1970s. Null's so-called thesis( see Quackwatch) uses Revici's ideas about urine surface tension.
There's a website "About Dr Revici" that tells his story from a perspective quite different from that of Dr Barrett.
As an aside-
If you look very closely, you'll find clues for my belief that alt med is promulgated by a very small group of advocates who spread themselves around.
One lawyer- several awful clients. Said awful clients are closely linked to major woo spreaders. Similarly if you look at the anti-vax contingent or the hiv/aids denialists, you'll find small numbers who 'get around' and promote themselves as a larger group than they truly are. I've shown the overall and overlapping facebook numbers for several anti-vax groups,
Because of legal representaives, we see that alt med's brand of "science" often proceeds through litigation not through research. There is quite a web of lawyer specialists for alt med that is inter-twined and recursive.
And " Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practise....." etc.
You know the Burzynski fanboy will be here soon whining that poor put-upon Burzynski couldn't run his Phase III trial because (*snivel*) no one would give him the money.
But really, why would anyone give money to fund a Phase III trial when there's no good Phase II trial suggesting the results might be positive? And why would anyone give money for a Phase III trial to a researcher who has started -- but never finished -- scores of trials over a period of thirty-five years? What reason is there for anyone to suppose that he'd finish the Phase III trial within three decades, even if it were funded?
From Wikipedia, using Scienceblogs (Gorski) as a source:
"The (FDA) letter requires cessation of noncompliant promotional activities, including use of testimonials and promotional interviews with Burzynski himself."
Will that make the Burzynski II movie actionable?
When did the Benevolent Scienceblog Overlords reintroduce comment numbering within comment threads?!
@HDB - I just saw that too - should make it easier.
@lilady "So how about putting you money to work by donating to the Burzynski Birthday/St. Jude’s Children’s Hospital fundraiser?"
Done! Thanks for the heads up.
My comments is in moderation, so here's a revision:
“The (FDA) letter requires cessation of noncompliant promotional activities, including use of testimonials and promotional interviews with Burzynski himself.”
Will that make the Burzynski II movie actionable?
@jay - Damn, I'm actually proud of you.
Now, let's chat about the whole vaccine thing.......
Oh Brian, if ONLY!
Yikes, it is like Denice noticed my spelling when I say "Oh, deer."
When did the Benevolent Scienceblog Overlords reintroduce comment numbering within comment threads?!
Sometime around 2100 UTC. Those octothorpes are going to cost a fortune.
(But at least they're enormous and in a color that distracts from the text.)
Thanks Dr. Jay for donating to this worthy cause.
BTW, how's that counseling of your patients' parents before they "opt out" of vaccine school entry requirements coming along? Tell the truth Dr. Jay...now that you and Dr. Sears lost your arguments against passage of California AB 2109...are you really counseling your patients' parents and informing them of them of the consequences of not vaccinating their children?
I sincerely hope that your "lactation specialist" who is handing out medical advice on your website is not doing the counseling.
No need to derail the thread with that. Everybody knows full well where everybody stands on that.
You are so anonymous. (And consistent in your unpleasant attitude, too)
I have always counseled my patients about the risks of not vaccinating. To do otherwise would be unethical. You see, I am not anonymous.
You have no need to be anonymous because the anti-vaccine bloggers and their groupies would never stalk you.
How do you counsel your patients about the MMR vaccine, Jay? (From your website)
Feb 23, 2010
MMR Vaccination, An Important Notice from February 2006
“I no longer give or recommend the MMR vaccine. I think that the risks exceed the benefits. Obviously, discuss this with your doctor but please know that the CDC declared rubella officially eradicated in the U.S. in 2005, measles remains a rare disease in America (30-40 cases/year) and mumps is also not very common.
Mumps can cause decreased fertility in teenage boys who get the illness and suffer testicular infection, but this is a very rare occurrence.
All three of these viruses continue to be associated with severe life-threatening complications in other countries, but the vaccine—including the “split” vaccines—enough risk to outweigh the benefit for healthy North American or European children.”
OK Gorski, I don't like you and you don't like me but I've got to convince someone to take this seriously.
The ebay auction is without a hint of sarcasm or a link to any page which explains what is going on. Everyone here knows what it is for, but anyone not already in on the gag will see that auction listing and assume that Burzinski is a respected doctor/researcher whom the skeptics would seriously ask to match their donation to a hospital.
This is the absolute best kind of promotion you can give to someone who is selling a lie. Refer to them in an apparently legitimate and casual way. Anyone who sees this auction before they are forced to dive into the world of cancer is going to have the concept of "Dr. Burzynski: cancer researcher" soaked into their brain. Furthermore, their memory of him being asked to donate money is at risk of morphing into "he donates money", even if he never actually does. Some people might be curious as to why a clinical trial costs money to attend, but even that sentence is worded as a standard fund-raising frame and not likely to raise any eyebrows ("We are trying to raise $200, the cost of feeding a dog for a year, and we are going to ask Purina to match it").
Harriet Hall doesn't seem too concerned (said she would "pass along" my comments), and the person who actually posted this auction says they didn't want to be too "scandalous".
This whole operation is an act of sarcasm, and they have removed all of the snark for the sake of being polite. So now what we have is just a straight up PR stunt in Burzynski's favor.
You have dug deep and found a seven-year-old note from my website. I certainly accept responsibility for not updating but I also must tell you that my basic thoughts about that triple-live-virus vaccine have not changed very much.
An update should include a mention that there were a couple years with spikes to 200 cases of measles and a year with a large spike in mumps cases. It would further include the information that I do give MMR vaccines to parents who request them but I'm consistent in my belief that the risks of the vaccine outweigh the benefits for healthy children.
The paragraphs you've cited are pretty moderate and even balanced when compared to the "anti-vaccine bloggers and their groupies" rhetoric you find so abhorrent. That's not me Lilady.
I'd guess that no one would stalk you if you were honorable and civil in your discussions and if you were reachable via email or other non-public avenues.
@Narad, "(But at least they’re enormous and in a color that distracts from the text.)"
What color are they for you? They're just kind of dark blue for me.
Methinks Jay is growing tired of my correcting his erroneous Twitter statements.
And he might want it to be a one way conversation if past history holds:
Just to let you know Dr. Gordon, I disinclined to reply back when I am asked to verify my email... not in a REPLY. I did post a real email address in your blog, I did not send you an initial email.. of course I only check this one every few days. (though I do understand why you would take a step like that. but NOT to a reply to an email you sent me!).
Though I remember when someone on the school's PTA sent me an email asking a question, and then had this thing where I had to verify my email in order to send my reply. I had her phone number, and used it to leave a message with both the answer to her question, and telling her it is annoying to send an email and expect the recipient to go through hoops to answer her!
What color are they for you? They’re just kind of dark blue for me.
It's just link-color, but I block Gravatar, so it's really distracting on my end. And I haven't found a way to spike them.
Jay...I didn't "dig deep" on your website to find your opinion about the MMR vaccine. And, thanks for confirming that you are still " consistent in (your) belief that the risks of the vaccine outweigh the benefits for healthy children."
How have you counseled your patients' parents about the seasonal influenza vaccine, Jay? Have you been viewing the CDC Flu Surveillance website? You do know, don't you, that 9 additional pediatric influenza deaths are confirmed, bringing this year's seasonal flu pediatric deaths to 29?
You further state, "I’d guess that no one would stalk you if you were honorable and civil in your discussions and if you were reachable via email or other non-public avenues."
I've been excoriated for my "pro-vaccine" and pro science "beliefs" by comments on Age of Autism and other anti-vaccine blogs, so why would I ever be reachable by e-mail or other non-public avenues?
You, OTH, because of what YOU define as your "moderate and even balanced" stance regarding childhood vaccines and your status as Jenny McCarthy's child's pediatrician will never be the target of these vile stalking bloggers and their groupies.
I’m consistent in my belief that the risks of the vaccine outweigh the benefits for healthy children.
Which is why you lose.
Look at that, they're link-color because they *are* links! Finally we can link to comments without having to search the page source.
Look at that, they’re link-color because they *are* links!
I know they're links. They're also self-referential. If the links are stable, then the numbers are superfluous.
He's asked me to follow him on Twitter before, his intent being so that he can DM me. I am of the opinion that if he wishes to respond to some public comment I made, he can respond publicly. His stance is that he doesn't want his followers "exposed" to "incivility".
At any rate, we can continue to point out where Dr. Jay denies the scientific evidence in favor of the beliefs that make him feel better, but we'd be getting rather off topic from the post.
[Our staff physicians strictly follow the protocol and submit periodical reports on the progress of the study for FDA evaluation.]
So, does deleting this mean that their staff physicians do not strictly follow the protocol, etc.?
Way off topic but...Anything new on the so called MenAfriVac vaccine paralysis in Africa?
Kelly, I found this which is supposed to be from the Chad Health Ministry. I hope that it is a real communique and if so, they should send press releases to major news outlets...to shut down all the crank anti-vaccine, conspiracy blogs.
...gotten away with his shadow clinical trials game for around 20 years now and with administering a therapy with no convincing evidence of efficacy against the tumors he’s treating for 35 years.
Sure is a f'd/u country. There drugs that have convincing evidence of efficacy and still haven't made it into the US .
Ahem, fat fingered premature launch. "even 35 years after available with major, industrialized trade partners AND even have some advantages over current competitor patent medicines in the US."
What drugs, specifically? Can you give us a couple of examples? Even one? From what countries do these drugs come? I'm not in the US; maybe my country already has these drugs.
Tegafur from the 70s, long developed with modulation by uracil, NICE reviewed, and offered as UFToral in the UK. Multiple "soft" modulations like PSK, low dose LV - a form of vitamin B9, cimetidine, COX2 inhibitors, some quinones. Pleasantly skips over common side effects for a few dollars a day in some countries, even for multiple site mCRC but not standard practice.
A question - why is there a discussion about vaccination on this thread? This article is about Burzynski and his long history of failure to provide any proof of benefit for his "patented" antineoplaston piss therapy. I realise that crank magnetism is a strong force and that Orac has blogged many times about vaccination and the anti-vax cranks - please make comments on that subject on those blog pages.
A comment - it seems that the only mentions of the word "antineoplaston" on the Burzynski Clinic website is now on the "Publications" page (thanks to W. Kevin Vicklund for posting a link to the Wayback machine copy above). Is this RIP antineoplastons (1976 - 2013). You won't be mourned.
Well Paul, there's always Aminocare.
I just donated $74, one for each trial he has advertised but not published final results. There are 72 known Phase II trials (Wayback Machine archive of his old website cancermed) plus two Phase III trials that he has claimed to have received approval for the trial protocol (the first of which was memory-holed in 2009, the second was memory-holed a few days ago)
Happy Birthday, Stan!
The .pdf files were not picked up by the Wayback Machine. More's the pity.
Are there any cookies from Stan's party left over?
My suspicions is more that he's learning what other woomeisters learn: giving specifics will only cause you problems. Ambiguity will keep the customers coming in, and the critics out.
Frozen Warning tweeted about this video today: it's like an "equal time" video to counter Merola's infomercial.
Ohhhhhhh ... I bet you're seeing "Amber" about this:
"A week before trial was scheduled to take place last April, administrative law judges (ALJ) dismissed most of the charges against the doctor. This forced the TMB to reevaluate, and it eventually agreed to dismiss the entire case. On November 19, judges from the Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings dismissed the TMB’s case against Dr. Burzynski for novel off-label use of combination gene-targeted therapy.
Rick Jaffe, Dr. Burzynki’s attorney, pointed to an important recent change in Texas law. In the previous legislative session, the Texas legislature stripped the TMB of its ability to summarily overturn the findings of the ALJ, and Dr. Burzynki’s case was one of the first to come under this new statute. The Board was thus forced to abide by the ALJ’s ruling."
Are y'all a part, or affiliated with this group?
If you read this I bet you had an Apocalyptic Fit !!!
I love the sound of crickets chirping and the quacking of the ducks...
@MI Dawn - wasn't Whitaker the idiot with the graph that showed 120% of all children would be diagnosed with autism in 20 years?
Resources referencing SRB:
2012 - The Principles and Practice of Antiaging Medicine for the Clinical Physician, Vincent C. Giampapa, M.D., F.A.C.S., AND MIRYAM (Ed.) 2003;33-4. Page 280
The Methylation Control of Gene Activation and Silencing Theory According to Dr. Stanley Burzynski,
Maximizing Your DNA Function for Optimal Health and Longevity ...
2011 - Malignant Liver Tumors: Current and Emerging Therapies, Pierre-Alain Clavier
2011 - Defeat Cancer: One-On-One With 15 Cancer Doctors
15 Doctors of Integrative and Naturopathic Medicine Tell You How
In this book, 15 cancer doctors
share the details of their treatment ...
Foreword by Richard Linchitz, MD Foreword by Robert Jay Rowen, MD
In my recently released book, Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, MD, of Houston, Texas, is renowned worldwide for his work with antineoplastons.
Antineoplastons for Controlling Cancer Cells · Dr. Burzynski's Treatment Outcomes & Success - What Causes Cancer?
Antineoplastons for Controlling Cancer Cells
2008 - Detox Outside The Box
Rita Ellithorpe, M.D., Robert Settineri, M.S. & Deborah Barwick
2006 - Gene silencing : new research
Grace W. Redberry (editor)
Age management treatments which target silenced genes / Stanislaw R. Burzynski.33. Ch. III. Gene Silincing in Tumors
2005 - Dr. Zeltzers
Brain Tumors-Leaving the Garden of Eden and Brain Tumors: --A Survival Guide to Diagnosis, Learning the Basics, ......
2005 - Surviving Mesothelioma and Other Cancers: A Patient's Guide, Paul Kraus, Page 129
www. survivingmesothelioma. com
2004 - Malignant Liver Tumors: Current and Emerging Therapies, Second Edition, Pierre-Alain Clavien
Pierre Clavien, MD, PhD, University Hospital - Zürich, Switzerland
Yuman Fong, MD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
H. Kim Lyerly, MD, Duke University Medical Center
Michael A. Morse, MD, Duke University Medical Center
Alan P. Venook, MD, University of California, San.Francisco, California
This classic reference has been completely revised and updated by a renowned team of editors to produce the most current, comprehensive, and authoritative book available on treating liver cancer. Clearly written, carefully edited, and impeccably referenced, ...
www. jblearning. com/catalog/9780763718572
2000 - Politics In Healing: The Suppression and Manipulation of American Medicine, Daniel (Dan) Haley, 481 page book,
Chapter One (6 of 6)
Author carefully documents 10 alternative cancer treatments ...
antineoplastin researcher Stanislaw Burzynski.
Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski: Article #2.
The Fiercest Battle - Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski; A Matter of Life and Death
www. politicsinhealing. com
Antineoplastons - UCSD Cancer Center - UC San Diego
& Training · Researcher Directory
http:// cancer. ucsd. edu/treatments/cam/therapies/Pages/default.aspx
http:// cancer. ucsd. /treatments/cam/therapies/Pages/Antineoplastons.aspx
@ Lawrence...Dr. Julian Whitaker the doctor who was dumb enough to arrange for a debate with Dr. Novella:
Whitaker is also involved in the scientology front group CCHR--the anti-psychiatry group that Mikey Adams also supports. Whitaker claims some bogus anti-aging board certification, which doesn't exist.
He's anti-vax, anti-psychiatry, defends scientology quackery, is one of Burzynski's ONLY supporters and invents board certifications. Another disgrace to real doctors. Burzysnki and Whitaker deserve each other.
I see that DJT is desperate for attention.
I've always suspected that Burzynski and Whitaker are some kind of back door business partners due to their common financial interest in the anti-aging scam. And since Whitaker is really Burzysnki's only major public defender, they have to have some connection that benefits both. Neither one strikes me as exactly altruistic.
As we know, Stan has started the ball rolling to set up clinics in Asia: I'm wildly speculating they will be a chain of anti-aging clinics run by both Stan and Whitaker.
I'm waiting for Pharyngula to rush on over to Wikipedia & correct them on the evolution of the coelacanth & that "goat sucking" Chupacabra !!!
@Narad: that's why I'm not commenting about anything DJT has to say. He's not worth the brain cells.
It's truly amazing what I can use MI Dawn for !!!
As I've posted before, some people get on here & post away without any fact-checking.
One was some post along the lines that Davorit Samid had no professional relationship with SRB.
Now that I have some time ... Oh, really???
It's good to find out that Orac finally figured out what this was about: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformat…
Does anyone know what the FDA is?
"CDA-2 had been approved as a first class new anti-cancer drug by the SFDA of mainland China in 2004 through the effort of both side of Taiwan Strait." http://share.cjfu.com/supersite/?uid-43-action-viewspace-itemid-21
"Phase I/II/III clinical trials of CDA-2 have been completed in China in 2003. In August 2004, the State Drug Administration (SDA) of China approved the use of CDA-2 as an anticancer drug in solid tumors." http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0052…
It's so sadly ironic that the people most likely to throw around the epithet "sheeple" are exactly the same ones who determine their direction less by asking "what does the evidence indicate?" and more by asking "who do I want to follow?"
Burzynski has been touting the supposed virtues of antineoplastons for decades now, saying how great they are, and now suddenly he's decided they're not good enough to mention. Why would anyone remain confident that Stan is the Man with the Anti-Cancer Plan when he's just disavowed that plan??
But then again, these are people who can't figure out that blaring carhorns mean nothing about who's right. I suppose they believe "sheep are meek, sheeple are meek, I'm arrogant and vituperative, therefore I couldn't possibly be the sheeple here."
Orac spent two days highlighting that letter back in November (7th and 8th)*. If they missed it, it’s because they weren’t paying attention.
*which is my subtle way of declining any credit for this info
Because dumbass trolls still aren't paying attention...
I write in code
Because I have nothing relevant to say
Are my initials AF
Or WKV by the way?
That is the trouble with trolls, Kevin. They are too busy listening to the sound of their own voice.
Posts #101, 103, & 105: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/21/quoth-joe-mercola-i-love-m…
Then returneth thee & commenteth about thy "sheeples.!!!"
The above link to Dianthus Medical is a great example of the opposite of DJT, or rather of a proper way to set out the claims of Burzyinski in a simple and easy to read manner. And it's pro-science. Worth a read if you're new to the topic and need a quick guide to the basic claims.