Articles

Stanislaw Burzynski: Using 1990s techniques to battle the FDA today

It figures that I couldn’t go three weeks into 2014 without the topic of Stanislaw Burzynski rearing its ugly head. I had hoped to make it to February or even beyond before feeling the gravitational tug of the wretched hive of ignominious and unethical behavior, but here we are, only 20 days into the new year. So be it.

2013 finished with serious setbacks for Stanislaw Burzynski and his unproven cancer treatment that he dubbed “antineoplastons” (ANPs) way back in the early 1970s. As you might recall, in November, two things happened. First, the FDA released its initial reports on its inspection of the Burzynski Clinic and Burzynski Research Institute (BRI) carried out from January to March 2013. They were damning in the extreme, pointing out the shoddy operating methods of the institutional review board (IRB) used by the BRI to approve and oversee Burzynski’s “clinical trials” (and I use the term loosely) of ANPs. Violations included using expedited approvals to review single patient protocols, something so far outside the purview of what the expedited approval process was intended for, namely approving minor tweaks to human subjects research protocols without requiring a full meeting of the IRB, that the FDA called Burzynski out for it. Other violations included failure to report serious adverse events (SAEs) and adverse events (AEs) to the FDA and/or the IRB, failure to follow proper informed consent procedures, failure to determine that risks to subjects were minimized and that risks to subjects were reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits, if any, and a lot of other violations, which are listed in my previous post on the subject.

Later in November, Liz Szabo of USA TODAY published a fantastic expose of Burzynski entitled “Doctor accused of selling false hope to families,” in which, in addition to many of the violations revealed by the FDA, it was further reported that the child whose death in the summer of 2012 triggered the FDA investigation was Josia Cotto, and that the child died of hypernatremia (elevated sodium levels in the blood) caused by ANP therapy. In response to the reports of shoddy record keeping, lack of ethics, and contributing to the death of a child, Burzynski was his characteristically cuddly self, referring to his critics as “hooligans” and “hired assassins,” while claiming that they “pretend they got sick and would like to extort money from us.” When last I wrote about Burzynski in November, his empire was struggling to strike back. Eric Merola, the film maker responsible for two pro-Burzynski propaganda movies Burzynski: Cancer Is A Serious Business and Burzynski: Cancer Is A Serious Business, Part 2, likened USA TODAY to everything from Nazi propaganda under Joseph Goebbels, to slave masters, and to the Westboro Baptist Church protesting at the funerals of gay soldiers killed in the line of duty. Meanwhile Burzynski himself tried to answer the FDA findings and failed miserably, nor did his poster presentation of singularly unimpressive results at the Society of Neuro-Oncology Meeting right before Thanksgiving help. The year ended with the Texas Medical Board using the FDA’s findings as part of the basis of charging Burzynski with false advertising, meaning that Burzynski will be spending a lot of time defending himself against the TMB in 2014.

Unfortunately, beginning in December, Burzynski and his allies decided to go back to the future, so to speak (or maybe just back to the 1990s) and resurrect the campaign that worked so well for them the last time Burzynski’s back was against the wall. Unfortunately, this strategy, rooted as it is in using cancer patients to lobby Congress to force the FDA to allow Burzynski to use antineoplastons, could work. Pro-Burzynski forces, in a nod to the past, have even hired the same lobbyist who, or so it is claimed by the pro-Burzynski forces, succeeded so brilliantly in the mid-1990s in persuading Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), then the chair of the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, to “investigate” the FDA’s “harassment” of Burzynski.

Using patients as human shields and missiles

If you want to understand Burzynski’s new strategy to keep using ANPs, you have but to go back and examine his previous strategy, which was to milk dying cancer patients for every bit of human sympathy they can evoke from lawmakers and the public. I realize that the way I chose to phrase that might be offensive to some readers, but how Burzynski has cynically exploited the sympathy we all feel for children dying of incurable brain tumors offends me, and he’s at it again. For example, there is the case of MacKenzie Lowe, a 12-year-old girl with an inoperable brain tumor whose story, entitled Child Cancer Patient Petitions For Brain Tumor Treatment Not Yet Approved By The FDA was published in The Huffington Post at the end of November:

Last Thanksgiving, 12-year-old McKenzie Lowe was diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor. Her family is petitioning New Hampshire’s governor to allow McKenzie to undergo Antineoplastons therapy, a treatment not approved by the FDA. The FDA has allowed 471 “compassionate use” exemptions to date, and McKenzie’s grandfather, Frank LaFountain, hopes she’ll be next in line.

“We’ve talked to survivors of this drug, who had the same condition McKenzie has,” he told HuffPost Live host Nancy Redd. “People say there aren’t any, but we know them. We’ve talked to them, and that’s what makes us so passionate about getting her this particular drug.”

And here’s the video:


Only a heartless bastard could fail to be moved by McKenzie’s story, which is, sadly, typical for pediatric patients with brain cancers. HuffPo pulled out all the stops to emphasize McKenzie’s cuteness and what a nice girl she is, while buying completely into the propaganda line that the Burzynski Clinic promotes.

It pained me to watch that video. It really did. But it also made me angry. Once again, Burzynski is offering false hope to families of cancer patients, and HuffPo deserves nothing but opprobrium for promoting the Change.org petition, which Eric Merola, producer of two propaganda “documentaries” for Burzynski is also promoting. As desperate as McKenzie’s situation is, Burzynski can’t help her. However, her family can help him, most likely unwittingly, by changing the narrative from a doctor without any training in internal medicine or oncology who is utterly unqualified to treat patients with advanced cancer who has cynically sidestepped the FDA and the Texas Medical Board for nearly 37 years while abusing the clinical trial process to keep giving a toxic, almost certainly ineffective chemotherapeutic agent to patients. And, make no mistake about it, antineoplastons (ANPs) are chemotherapy, no matter how much Burzynski tries to claim otherwise.

The Change.org petition for McKenzie Lowe, as well-meaning as its sponsors seem to be, is exceedingly misguided. The Friends of McKenzie Lowe are petitioning FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg to grant a compassionate use exemption for McKenzie so that Burzynski can treat her with ANPs. Recall that one of the very offenses that got Burzynski into hot water with the FDA was his investigational review board’s (IRB) history of playing fast and loose with single patient use protocols, in which patients were approved through the expedited approval process, which was never intended to be used for this purpose. Putting patients on compassionate single patient use requires full approval by the entire IRB. In essence, this petition is asking the FDA Commissioner to ignore those findings and let Burzynski do it again for McKenzie Lowe. One also wonders whether the Lowes know other things about Burzynski. For instance, the FDA found that he had destroyed original patient records and, most importantly of all, misclassified partial and complete responses. Suffice to say, Burzynski’s explanations are underwhelming and unconvincing.

Finally, there is the oft-repeated claim that Burzynski is the only person who has ever cured the cancer that McKenzie has. These days it is Burzynski’s favorite line, a line often parroted by his minions, particularly Eric Merola. Would that it were true! What Burzynski proponents can’t understand is that I would be very happy if there were a treatment that could actually cure children with diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG). As I’ve discussed many times before, nearly all of Burzynski’s “cancer cure” testimonials, when examined more closely, are highly dubious with respect to whether it was actually ANPs that cured the tumor, with not a single one of them being particularly convincing when examined closely. Either there’s insufficient information (i.e., the timeline is vague), or there exists the possibility of misdiagnosis, or the mistaking of the natural reversal of pseudoprogression for an actual antitumor effect. Moreover, brainstem gliomas in children are a heterogeneous group of tumors. Moreover, many of these tumors aren’t biopsied because of their location, and are usually diagnosed by their appearance on MRI. However, MRIs, as discussed in the case of Tori Moreno, can sometimes find masses that look for all the world like tumors but aren’t. Moreover, contrary to Burzynski’s claim, there are occasional long-term survivors, some of whom received little or no therapy, such Connor Frankenberg, a child from Germany, and two patients who underwent spontaneous remission. (Yes, I know that one of the children listed is a Burzynski patient, Tori Moreno. One notes that the DIPG Registry does not mention Burzynski or ANPs at all.)

The DIPG Registry concludes that, although the vast majority of children with DIPGs do poorly:

The bottom line is: 1) we really don’t understand DIPGs, and 2) there are children who have been diagnosed with DIPGs-based on the incomplete knowledge that we currently have- who truly have had spontaneous regression of their tumors and 3) most of the children with reports of spontaneous regression have been very young.

The big problem is that, like many dubious cancer doctors, Burzynski appears not to keep good enough records to demonstrate one way or the other whether he can cure DIPG, and we already know he misclassified partial and complete responses. In brief, DIPG is a horrible disease, with only 10% surviving beyond two years, and there is no convincing evidence that Burzynski can do any better than conventional oncology, much less cure DIPG, as much as he repeats the claim that he can. Worse, he hasn’t published a single one of his completed phase II clinical trials, even though he’s had well over 15 years to complete them. With tumors this lethal, most such trials should be completed within five years.

Unfortunately, Mackenzie Lowe isn’t the only such patient being used by Burzynski’s minions. Unfortunately, now there are now at least two more.

First up, there is a Jewish boy in Houston named Raphael Elisha Cohen:

Then, the unthinkable happened. A series of symptoms in the couple’s young son, Raphael Elisha, led to the diagnosis of medulloblastoma, an aggressive form of cancer of the brain and spine. Initially, the now-6-year-old underwent surgery to remove as much of the brain tumor as possible, followed by radiation and chemotherapy.

Unfortunately, Cohen’s tumor recurred in September 2012. After this, the story became sadly familiar. Well-meaning people set up a fund to send Raphael Elisha to Houston for treatment by Stanislaw Burzynski, as described in this article:

The Cohen family, of Houston, TX, is facing a battle none of us should have to go through – aggressive brain cancer in their 6-year old son Refael Elisha. Having recently received the devastating news from their doctors that “there is nothing more we can do for him,” the Cohens are turning to a last resort – Antineoplaston Therapy at the Burzyinski clinic. However, the FDA pulled their approval for this treatment in 2012 pending further clinical trials. We are told that the FDA is nearing approval to resume this treatment, but Refael Elisha does not have time to wait.

The FDA has the power to approve a “compassionate use exemption” so Refael Elisha can undergo this therapy to try and save his life.

We are asking the FDA to grant this exemption so we can continue to fight for his life.

Several other stories were written, including this story and a blog post by Ariela Davis for the Times of Israel that gave Cohen’s story international attention. Here’s the Whitehouse.gov petition, which uses language very similar to what is quoted above.

This sort of thing infuriates me, because it really does appear as though the Cohen family is being lied to. According to this editorial, the Cohens are aware of Burzynski’s reputation. However, obviously either Burzynski, Eric Merola, or someone from the Burzynski Patient Group has been feeding them “success stories.” As I’ve explained time and time again, these “success stories” appear compelling on the surface, but if you look at them with a knowledge of how cancer progresses and how cancer treatments work it rapidly becomes apparent that they are not evidence that Burzynski’s antineoplastons can do any better against deadly cancers than conventional therapy. Think Hannah Bradley and Laura Hymas. Think Mary Jo Siegel. Think Tori Moreno. It seems as though Burzynski cured these patients, but he almost certainly did not.

In addition, Burzynski has apparently been telling patients that the FDA is “nearing approval to resume” his clinical trials almost ever since the FDA imposed a partial clinical hold on Burzynski’s antineoplaston trials in the summer of 2012. That partial clinical hold meant that no further children could be enrolled on any of Burzynski’s clinical trials. Later, in early 2013, that partial clinical hold was extended to adults. Patients who were already receiving antineoplastons could continue to receive them, but no new patients could be enrolled in Burzynski’s clinical trials. Ever since then, Burzynski’s been dangling the hope that the FDA would lift the partial clinical hold. Now, apparently, he’s using those patients to try to get the attention of the White House, and in Cohen’s case he has been very successful.

Raphael Elisha is not alone, however. There’s an adult who is also going down the same road. This adult happens to be the wife of Sammy Hagar’s drummer. She is 46 and was diagnosed with an inoperable brainstem glioma. Her name is Liza Cozad, and to send her to the Burzynski Clinic there’s a Give Forward campaign. Her Change.org petition asks for the same thing as MacKenzie Lowe and Elisha Cohen’s families are asking:

Six months ago, Liza was diagnosed with a deadly brainstem tumor – called a DIPG – it rarely strikes in adults (only about 20 in the U.S. each year) but is unfortunately common among brain tumors in children – and just as deadly – a year to a year and a half to live. No doctor can perform surgery to remove due to its location, chemo has consistently shown to be ineffective on Liza’s type of tumor, and even the radiologist tells her her best case scenario with radiation is it would return in 1-2 years, more aggressively, and they could no longer radiate. There is one drug that could save Liza’s life. The drug – ANP – has been approved for Phase III clinical trials by the FDA. This means it has been deemed safe (Phase I trials) and effective (Phase II trials). The FDA has continually denied Liza’s request for the treatment under a Single Patient Protocol (the FDA format under which she could be approved), saying they have questions for the manufacturer about the drug based on one patient out of hundreds’ response to sodium levels. They have cotinued [sic] with this for a year – each time the manufacturer answers all their questions, the FDA keeps coming back with more – all the time denying any new patients – including Liza – from receiving this drug the FDA has itself acknowledged to be safe and effective. This precious and caring young woman has been fighting her fight since April, but her health is declining. This drug has a documented 27% success rate on her exact kind of tumor – which is 27% better than her odds with all standard therapies – and with some children still cancer-free over 20 years later.

Recently Cozad and her husband posted a video appeal to YouTube:

There is, of course, no evidence that Burzynski has a 27% success rate in treating DIPG, but the video is heartbreaking. Her story is depressingly familiar to those of us who know about the Burzynski saga. After being given the diagnosis and told that radiation would only delay progression of the tumor, she went on the Internet and, as all too many patients with inoperable brain tumors do, found Stanislaw Burzynski. In her desperation, as all too many cancer patients have, Cozad latched on to the false hope that Burzynski offers. As so many of Burzynski’s patients have done, they talked to Burzynski’s “success stories,” who, being convinced themselves that Burzynski saved their lives when he almost certainly didn’t, convinced Cozad and her husband that Burzynski was the only one who could save her life.

These are the patients are petitioning various Senators and Representatives to lean on the FDA to grant the compassionate use exemption. This is what those of us who want to protect cancer patients from this sort of predation are against, parents of children with cancer who have been convinced that Burzynski is their family member’s only hope. What human being doesn’t have difficulty saying no to such an appeal, even when he knows the family’s desperation has led them down a dark path to viewing Burzynski as the only man who can save their loved one? That they are wrong is almost beside the point. What politician can say no to such an appeal? At the very least, they will look into it and put pressure on the FDA. Meanwhile those of us who stand up and say no, who try to point out that Burzynski can’t save these patients, that they are being used by him so that he can re-open his ANP clinical trials, are pummeled with arguments like the one by Randy Barnes that we should “respect the parents’ choice.” After pointing out that he is “not a fan” of the Burzynski Clinic, and “agrees with many of the criticisms leveled at Stanislaw Burzynski and his treatments,” he asserts that “Raphael Elisha’s parents are the only ones with the right and responsibility to make the best decisions they can in a horrible situation that no one who has not faced the loss of a child can possibly understand.” He then concludes:

If you choose not to sign the petition that is fine, but please, allow the Cohens the dignity they deserve by respecting their right to make the choices they deem fit for their child. Publicly fighting the Burzynski Clinic in Raphael Elisha’s name will only bring more pain to an already suffering family.

This is the argument we’re up against as well, an argument that is every bit as invalid as when it is used to defend, for example, the family of Sarah Hershberger for relying on quackery instead of chemotherapy to treat a deadly lymphoma. We can respect the parents’ decision, to the extent that they are the parents. We can try to understand the desperation that led them to it, even though they are aware of all the criticisms of Burzynski. Most parents can only imagine how they would react under similar circumstances. Even I couldn’t guarantee that I wouldn’t be tempted by the blandishments of Burzynski and his followers if I were in the same position as the Cohens. However, sympathy and respect do not equal agreement, nor do they require us to acquiesce and just “shut up” when the Cohen’s grief and desperation lead them to do something profoundly harmful to public health, to use the power of their story to persuade lawmakers to call off the FDA.

The Alliance for Natural Health joins the fray

Right after the holidays, one of the most prominent pro-quackery advocacy groups in the country, scourge of any legislator trying to regulate supplements or “natural medicine,” the Alliance for Natural Health USA (ANH-USA) launched a series of articles urging its members and followers to write to their legislators to lean on the FDA to allow Burzynski to treat patients under compassionate use protocols:

If you want to understand how much contempt the ANH-USA has for its audience, I’ll show you briefly through one passage from one of these articles. The ANH-USA complains that Liz Szabo:

Cites the lack of published random-controlled trials (RCTs) as evidence of antineoplastons’ uselessness, while omitting the fact that the efficacy of the treatment has recently been confirmed by a randomized, clinical trial by Japanese researchers. And of course ANH-USA has repeatedly had to point out that RCT’s are enormously expensive. Nobody but drug companies can afford them, and they will usually only undertake them if the treatment is under patent and therefore a government enforced monopoly. In addition, there is growing evidence that RCTs, particularly in the context of individualized treatments, should no longer be considered the “gold standard” for drug efficacy.

Of course, this is the same nonsense Burzynski’s been peddling for the last couple of years about a vaporware randomized clinical trial carried out by Hidaeki Tsuda in Japan. This trial featured prominently in Eric Merola’s second movie. Unfortunately, although the trial sounds interesting as described in Merola’s movie, it has not yet been published. Now take a look at the article linked to in the ANH diatribe. It was published in Oncology Reports (not the greatest of cancer journals) entitled “Demethylation effect of the antineoplaston AS2-1 on genes in colon cancer cells”. Do you notice something? I did, immediately. More accurately, I didn’t notice something, and that something was a clinical trial. This is nothing more than yet another in vitro study, and it’s not even that compelling of one, given that it uses enormous concentrations of AS-2, 2 mg/ml, way higher than is likely to be achievable in the bloodstream, even using the massive doses of ANPs that Burzynski advocates using. Yes, Burzynski really does have that much contempt for you that he tries to pass off an in vitro study as a clinical trial.

The rest of the ANH-USA’s attacks are largely nothing more than regurgitations of past Burzynski excuses and attacks. For example, in one article the ANH-USA twists the cases of Liza Cozad and McKenzie Lowe to its own ends, all but saying that the FDA is evilly laughing and twirling its metaphorical mustache as Cozad and Lowe die, as USA TODAY dutifully promotes the agenda of its pharma masters and the FDA. Hilariously, there was a third article claiming that the FDA violated patient privacy by providing Szabo with medical records of a patient without the parents’ permission. If you click on the link now, there’s nothing there. The article has apparently been taken down. There are, however, multiple links to it elsewhere, for example, here, here, here (our old friend Merola) and here. The article still shows up on the ANH sitemap, but there’s nothing there. Apparently, the ANH took it down, which is probably because it was full of misinformation and lies. I only wish I had saved a screenshot or web archive of the article. My mistake.

Bringing it all together: The ANP Coalition

It’s taken nine months since Burzynski supporters revealed in a video of the panel discussion after a screening of Eric Merola’s movie that various Burzynski patient groups were planning to form an organization to lobby Congress for fast track approval of ANPs. Indeed, Merola and his merry band of Burzynski sycophants were quite open about wanting fast track approval for ANPs so that Burzynski could then prescribe them off-label for virtually any cancer and presumably could also sell them to any doctor who wanted to use them for whatever purpose. Of course, advertising a drug for off-label uses is against the law, which is why the FDA takes such a dim view of it, but “word of mouth” and ANP-friendly groups like the ANH would make sure that word got around fast. Unfortunately for Stash, with the deficiencies of the procedures of the Burzynski Clinic and BRI with respect to running clinical trials having been laid bare in Liz Szabo’s article in USA TODAY, fast track approval for ANPs for glioblastoma is, at best, highly unlikely. So Burzynski’s allies have fallen back on lobbying Congress to lean on the FDA to allow single patient protocols, sometimes called “compassionate use” protocols, to allow Burzynski to treat patients with ANPs even though his clinical trials are shut down. To do this, they have formed a group called the ANP Coalition:

It is our fundamental belief that the discovery of Antineoplastons (ANP) can and will herald a new age of medical science and subsequent advancements in the treatment of previously incurable diseases. This benign yet effective drug contradicts the paradigm that cancer treatments have to be harmful to be effective, and redirects modern medicine back to its salient principal Primum non nocere, “first, do no harm”.

How does the ANP Coalition intend to accomplish our mission?

We will accomplish our mission by focusing on four main goals:

  • To educate the public as to the importance and benefits of ANP.
  • To advocate for patients who need access to ANP for medical conditions.
  • To expedite regulatory approval for ANP thereby making it available to all.
  • To further research and development of ANP.

Consistent with a lot of the rhetoric used by Eric Merola and the Burzynski Patient Group, the rhetoric on the ANP Coalition site is apocalyptic, painting the battle as nothing less than one of good versus evil:

This is not a time for all good men to act; it is a time when all good people must act. We live in an age of awareness, where technology has become the great equalizer. With technology comes communication, and through communication we can educate! Once armed with education, propaganda withers and dies!

This website is designed with the sole purpose of educating the public and exposing the truth. The battle starts here in cyber space, but the war is won in the real world, by real people who participate in real ways. It will be won by you!

We are no longer an organization of patients connected by a cure; we are the collective who will not allow evil to triumph.

I can provide a hint of why the rhetoric is so amped up. One has only to look at who owns the ANPcoalition.org. The domain is registered through Domains By Proxy, which makes one wonder why the ANP Coalition would want to hide who owns the domain. First of all, the pictures on the Contact page reveal several old friends, including Ric Schiff, whose wife Laura, not coincidentally, owns a related domain, theotheranpcoalition.org, and registered it under her real name and also appears on the Contact page. (A screenshot has been saved, of course.) Also there is Mary Jo Siegel and her husband Steve. These are the people behind ANP Coalition, just as they are heavily involved in the Burzynski Patient Group. In fact, in July 2013, Ric Schiff was elected to the board of directors of the BRI, which makes his involvement in this effort a massive conflict of interest.

Predictably, Elisha Cohen, Liza Cozad, and Mackenzie Lowe are featured as the stories used to drive petitions to lawmakers and the FDA to allow compassionate use of ANPs. In addition, there are two new patients, of whom I haven’t heard before, Laura Nowosad, a 7 year old girl from Canada with a DIPG whose story is sadly familiar to anyone who covers Burzynski:

Her parents, Janusz and Mira, are an amazing couple whose lives got shattered in an instant. Laura is their only child and their whole world. They couldn’t believe that this is happening to their little girl; they were hopeful that the doctors made a wrong diagnosis and went for a second opinion. Unfortunately, this diagnosis was confirmed. Words cannot explain the feelings of hopelessness, frustration, and terror they felt when they had to be faced with the truth.

Janusz and Mira are not giving up hope! They have taken Laura to The Burzynski Clinic in Houston, Texas. This clinic has seen significant improvement in patients facing similar diagnosis as Laura, using alternative therapies not available in Canada. However, the treatment is very expensive. The initial visit costs $25,000 and each month after is $30,000.

On the same page is yet another desperate family being used by Burzynski’s minions as well, that of Isaac DeHerrera, a five year old boy whose tale is presumably so new that there isn’t yet a fundraising website that I could find or a petition to let Burzynski treat Isaac with ANPs on a compassionate use protocol. I’m sure there will be more families added as soon as Burzynski and his minions can find them. Clearly Ric and Laura Schiff and Steve and Mary Jo Siegel believe that they can duplicate the success Burzynski patients had in the 1990s, which was the last time Burzynski was in a comparable amount of trouble, with demonstrations featuring patients chanting, “FDA go away! Let me live another day!” and the intense political pressure brought to bear by a compliant Senator or Representative, the way they persuaded Joe Barton to drag then-FDA director David Kessler in front of his committee four times over two years to explain why the FDA was “harassing” Burzynski. Only this time, they have the Internet, which was only in its infancy as an organizing tool back in 1995, which allows them to produce a “Meet the Miracles” section, which, presumably, will be full of glowing testimonials of Burzynski Patient Group patients. So far, there is only Jessica Ressel, who was featured in the first Burzynski movie and whose testimonial is not convincing, as I described in detail in my review. No doubt she believes Burzynski saved her, but it is almost certainly the case that he did not, which is the only reason I can forgive her regurgitating Burzynski Clinic talking points.

Perhaps the most concerning aspect of the ANP Coalition is that it’s hired a lobbyist named Antonio C. Martinez II:

His experience with ANP extends more than 18 years back when he represented the Burzynski Patient Group in 1995 and 1996, organizing numerous patient demonstrations and a Congressional Hearing on February 29, 1996 before the U.S. House of Representatives Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations. These efforts helped Burzynski patients obtain access to ANP through Phase II clinical studies.

This isn’t cheap. Unless Martinez is serving pro bono, his hourly rates are $250 to $400. I have no reason to doubt the claim that he worked on organizing the Congressional Hearing in 1996 at which Burzynski patients vented at the FDA, but I wonder. I’ve read both Richard Jaffe‘s Galileo’s Lawyer: Courtroom Battles in Alternative Health, Complementary Medicine and Experimental Treatments and Thomas D. Elias’ The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It. Both books describe the Congressional hearings in which Burzynski patients testified from a very pro-Burzynski standpoint. I don’t recall seeing Mr. Martinez’s name being mentioned even once, and a quick flip through the indices and relevant sections of these books did not change that assessment for me. If Martinez were so important to the 1996 hearings, one would think that Jaffe and/or Elias would mention him and at least briefly describe his role in their books. They didn’t, as far as I can tell.

So what does the ANP Coalition want to accomplish? Its list of demands is long and some are completely unrealistic. For example, on its page where it tells people how they can help, it asks people to write to Wikipedia to:

…demand removal of the “Burzynski Clinic” webpage, since it has been high jacked by a paid group who identify themselves as “The Skeptics”, and is no longer open for public contribution. The Wikipedia page on “Burzynski Clinic” is filled with untrue statements, statements taken entirely out of context, cherry-picked information, sources that do not qualify as sources under Wikipedia rules, fake sources—you name it.

The Wikipedia team has already noticed the ANP Coalition’s attempts to astroturf its article on the Burzynski Clinic.

Others, however, are not unachievable. Certainly organizing petitions and getting people to write to their lawmakers are achievable aims, and that’s what concerns me: How do we respond? In the absence of sound scientific information showing that ANPs almost certainly don’t work and are very toxic, Burzynski’s claims notwithstanding, legislators and politicians are going to go with the sympathetic story; i.e., the stories told by Burzynski supporters of children with deadly brain tumors who will die soon if they aren’t allowed to have ANP therapy. That’s why it infuriates me to see how Burzynski so cynically uses patients with deadly cancers in his battle with the FDA. Make no mistake, that is exactly what he is doing here. He dangles false hope in front of patients like Eliza Cozad, Raphael Elisha Cohen, and McKenzie Lowe, and their families do the rest for him. Even in the case that a legislator understands the lack of evidence, he might well go with a “What’s the harm?” attitude, not appreciating that the harm can be appreciable given how toxic ANPs are, not to mention the financial harm done to the family raising tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for an ineffective treatment. That’s why information to show why, as much as we sympathize with the plight of these patients and their families, legislators should not overrule the FDA’s decision regarding antineoplastons. Indeed, the real investigation should be into why the FDA has allowed Burzynski to get away with what he’s gotten away with all these years.

I also appeal to you, our readers, for help and ideas. Visit Bob Blaskiewicz’s appeal and take action. In the meantime, let’s hear ideas for how to counter this latest initiative.

Posted in: Cancer, Clinical Trials, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (83) ↓

83 thoughts on “Stanislaw Burzynski: Using 1990s techniques to battle the FDA today

  1. goodnightirene says:

    I did my best to spam the comments on that HuffPo piece about McKenzie Lowe and I had to suffer a whopping load of abuse as a result–okay by me.

    Do the people who raise money to go to Houston ever ask themselves why this “simple and harmless” treatment should cost so much? Do they look into the criticism of SB at all? Talk about being “one-sided”! They seem to hear only what they are looking for–miracles. Of course, we do not hear the stories of the parents who go home and come to terms with the situation and it might be useful to explore that scenario.

    I do have a criticism of the diagnosing doctors of children with these kinds of cancers: Parents need to be diverted to some kind of counseling which will present the evidence compassionately and with follow up as the family comes to terms. You cannot just say, “there is nothing more we can do” and send them home (and I’m not sure that is the way it’s done). Of course parents will get on the Googles and start trying to find some hope. That needs to be countered from the get-go by the diagnosing institution, and I don’t mean a walk-through from a newbie social worker. If we can do this for genetic testing, it seems we can do it for children with inoperable cancer.

    The other problem is indeed with the FDA. If they had simply shut SB down years ago, this wouldn’t be going on today. This is what happens when an agency doesn’t (or isn’t allowed to) do its job. It’s difficult to get the horse back in the barn once the door is left open (or however that saying goes–yes, I passed the SAGE test!) :-)

  2. It’s well and good to kvetch on a website, but damn it we need people to write to their reps. This outrage has gone on as long as the Tuskegee Experiment, and involved 8X as many patients. PLEASE go to thehoustoncancerquack.com and send those documents to your reps. It’s what we have to do to if we’re ever going to help end the misery.

    1. LDoBe says:

      http://thehoustoncancerquack.com/
      All you need in one convenient place to try and bend the ear of your congressional representatives and senators.

      1. windriven says:

        OK. I have sent a letter to Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) modelled loosely on the one offered on your site. Murray is on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee so this should be right up her alley. I will follow up with her office in about 10 days.

        Let’s see some activity from other SBMers – K?

  3. Jon Brewer says:

    Yeah, nothing new here. You let SCAMmers write the laws, you get pro-SCAM laws. It’d be like letting tobacco companies write laws governing tobacco marketing; more likely you’d get some sort of variant of veggie libel laws on your posterior for saying smoking causes cancer, if tobacco companies wrote all the laws governing tobacco.

    Yet we allow SCAMmers to do this exact thing.

  4. Concerned Relative says:

    I keep reading about the ANP trials being on hold, but I am directly aware of one of my relative who recently arrived at the BC and has started ingesting the ANP pills.

    Can you clarify what is going one?

  5. Guy Chapman says:

    The “ANP coalition” astroturf site is lobbying supporters to email Wikipedia so the accurate Wikipedia page is clearly hurting. Watcht he page, talk to Susan Gerbic, make sure it remains firmly rooted in reality.

  6. “Concerned relative”, your relative is likely getting sodium phenylbutyrate, a urea cycle drug metabolized in the liver into some of the constituents of “ANP”. It doesn’t work on cancer either. I’m going to ask Gorski to send you my email address…..

    HEY, GORSKI! GIVE CONCERNED RELATIVE MY EMAIL ADDRESS!!!!

    1. Dr Robert Peers says:

      Hi Bob, Thanks for telling us what might actually be in these antineoplastons–sodium phenylbutyrate. Where did you find that? I’m damn curious about this, and my curiosity rises to new heights when I see you stating that it doesn’t work in cancer. At first, I accepted your statement, assuming you were an experienced oncologist. But then I remembered a couple of things, buried deep in my cancer files, about butyrate. Epigenetics man Rod Dashwood, in Oregon, once listed some promising anti-cancer nutrients with epigenetic properties: broccolini sulforaphanes, garlic sulfur compounds, biotin and BUTYRATE! I See Pubmed: DASHWOOD R AND BUTYRATE. Next, I googled sodium phenobutyrate, and found a good paper [last author Michael Carducci] that suggests that the substance might do some epigenetic tricks after all, including reactivating silenced tumour-suppressor genes like p21. I jumped at that, because p21 is a key cell cycle checkpoint protein, with differentiating effects, possible cell-death effects, and a range of epigenetic effects of its own. And you don’t need butyrate to activate it: I research the grain sugar myo-inositol, which activates TWO cell cycle inhibitors [p21 and p27: see SINGH R P AND P21, on PubMed]. Cereal fibre was first linked to lower bowel cancer risk about 1977, in a Finnish study [see, on PubMed: REDDY B S AND FIBRE, and find his ref 33]. A few years later, nutritionist J W Eaton noted that only cereal fibre was anti-cancer, not fruit or vegetable fibre, and suggested it was the phytic acid [inositol hexaphosphate; IP6] in the bran that did the trick, by chelating iron in the gut. This inspired Baltimore pathologist Prof A M Shamsuddin to test IP6, with fascinating results in various tumours in cell culture [see SHAMSUDDIN A M AND INOSITOL]. This work got Prof Rana P Singh, in Denver, interested, and it was him who saw the p21 and p27 effect.
      Then, in 2005, London cancer scientist Marco Falasca wrapped all this up, by showing that IP5 [not IP6] inhibited the key growth-promoting Insulin-like Growth Factor 1 signal pathway–superbly [FALASCA AND PENTAPHOSPHATE]. This inhibition also activates the master longevity transcription factor FoxO1, which seems to drive the downstream effects on p21 and p27. In Budapest, Dr Aneko Bozsik has studied the genetic effects of IP6 [which generates some IP5 in the cell interior], finding it affects up to 1800 genes, including 5 major cancer pathways, and concludes that IP6/IP5 is a strong differentiating agent, and also has moderate apoptotic [cell-killing] properties. See [BOZSIK A AND INOSITOL]. I also recall, regarding gliomas and brain tumours, a paper on IP6 and glioblastome multiform, where something good happened. I’ll dig it up. What medicine needs is something better than what this Burzynski guy has to offer–I suggest we explore inositol supplement, which is cheap and safe. Other approaches, that could be added, might include omega-3 and -6 polyunsaturates, which can suppress a cancer cell’s ability to rapidly synthesize non-essential fatty acids for new cell membranes [R LUPU]. Polyunsaturates also restore physiological lipid peroxidation in cancer cell membranes–ESPECIALLY if first stripped of their vitamin E. Peroxidation is deadly to cancer cells [D HORROBIN; K CHEESEMAN; T SHIBATA]. I have compiled a whole cocktail of natural anti-cancer ingredients, with inositol and polyunsaturates at the head of the list. This cocktail would synergize with orthodox treatment, and may do some good in hopeless cases, like gliomas. Finally, we have here in Melbourne a remarkable immune expert, Martin Ashdown, who is pioneering “timed immunotherapy” as a potential cancer cure–that’s what he hopes–based on keeping anti-cancer T effector cells continually angry for weeks at a time a difficult thing to do, that requires precise timing of therapy]. Whether this will work in gliomas I do not know.

      1. David Gorski says:

        You might also be interested in his marketing of “personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy,” nearly every regimen of which prescribed by Burzynski contains sodium phenylbutyrate:

        http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/stanislaw-burzynskis-personalized-gene-targeted-cancer-therapy/

        And:

        http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/three-myths-about-stanislaw-burzynski-and-the-skeptics/ (Myth #2)

      2. MadisonMD says:

        Peers:
        You are the ‘James Joyce’ of science writing. Your scientific inference illustrates 6 degrees of separation between any two ideas–but it would be neater if you could make the link without leaps of logic.

        1. Dr Robert Peers says:

          Er, which particular scientific inference or logical leap were you referring to, Madison? I love long chains of causation, like the following:

          Mum eats fatty diet in gestation [32% of all American pregnancies].

          Which reduces mitochondrial membrane unsaturation.

          Which inhibits respiratory Complex 1.

          Which releases more superoxide and H2O2 than normal.

          Which activates pro-inflammatory transcription factors NFkB and AP1.

          Which mildly inflame the placenta.

          Which inhibits the placental cortisol-busting barrier enzyme 11-beta hydroxy steroid dehydrogenase type 2.

          Which allows intact maternal cortisol to reach the foetal brain.

          Which causes epigenetic down-regulation of the corticosteroid receptor-coding gene.

          Which causes permanently impaired negative cortisol feedback on the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis.

          Which causes ANXIETY DISORDER.

          Which affects 32% of Americans, including over HALF of all medical students and physicians, and also including MOST CAM PUSHERS, many of whom suffer panic attacks, hypochondriasis and irritable bowel.

          And which also includes serious permanent effects of placentally-derived inflammatory cytokines–especially interleukin-6–on the foetal brain, resulting in pro-psychotic mesolimbic hyperdopaminergia.

          Which–especially in severe anxiety or obsessionality–may account for DELUSIONAL TENDENCIES–even without schiz genes present.

          Which Aussie research psychiatrist Prof John McGrath has FOUND, in EIGHT PERCENT of the adult community–PubMed: MCGRATH AND DELUSIONAL-LIKE EXPERIENCES.

          Which–he also finds–ARE INDEED, associated with anxiety and depression. BINGO!!

          And which tell us a lot about sustained irrational vengeful obsessive CHRONIC CAMOPATHY DELUSIONAL DISORDER and vaccine deniers–like an Aussie mum who is so irrationally, fearfully obsessed with her kids getting vaccines, that she is taking her ex-husband to high court, to stop him getting them vaccinated. This lady is seriously ill, in my opinion.

          I have met similar folks scared to death of electromagnetic rays, or common chemicals–and this is real big-league pseudo-psychotic depressive obsessive delusional stuff–some actually commit suicide.

          The worst cases may actually have a few schizotaxia genes, which may aggravate their executive dysfunction, magical thinking and delusion-proneness. I have met such cases, and cannot help them–maybe low-dose haloperidol plus anxiolytic inositol would help, but they won’t take the stuff. They don’t trust me, and carry on seeing naturopath idiots.

          However, I have successfully cured a number of milder irrational nerve cases with inositol–they actually stop going to naturopaths, who [they tell me] cost too much and didn’t really help them. Hey, I WON!!

          Check out Amy Arnsten’s stuff–from her brain lab at Yale–on exactly how anxiety [she calls it "stress"] takes the prefrontal cortex “off-line”–like when you’re very tired, and can’t think. Or a bus is about to hit you.

          Permanent anxiety may well inhibit creativity, cognitive flexibility and lateral thinking, and also elicit a rapid knee-jerk aggressive defensive response to a perceived threat–even in intelligent people, like medical practitioners. Some of whom write on SBM threads. I won’t name anybody. But inositol 5 gm a day would fix the problem easily.

          1. MadisonMD says:

            @Peers: Which leap am I referring to? All of them. And so then you list another series.

            Your long chain of causation is nothing but a series of tenuous logical leaps. It ignores other ramifications in an infinite web of potential and equally weak inferences that could lead to contradictory conclusions. Finally, it does not even lead to your conclusion that 5g inisotol per day would get readers here to agree with you. (I think LSD would more likely have this effect than inisotol, personally.)

            If you are serious, you are not thinking clearly, Peers. You should check in with your doctor or psychiatrist. Or perhaps this is some sort of joke you are having on us. It is mildly amusing–well very mildly.

          2. Harriet Hall says:

            This is a science-based medicine website. Chains of inductive reasoning and testimonials don’t add up to science. Your claims to have cured all kinds of diseases including Alzheimer’s will be ignored until they have been properly tested in controlled studies.

  7. Kira says:

    The Raphael Cohen case is particularly troubling to me, as I am an Orthodox Jew. I’ve been forwarded the petition many, many times and it’s shown up in my Facebook feed over and over. Jewish charitable organizations have gotten involved, supporting the Cohen Family’s efforts. I have written to everyone I can think of to no avail. Every organization and rabbi has said that they’ll support the family. It’s extremely discouraging. I’d love some ideas, too. Honestly, it’s really hard to hear, “Don’t you want to save a little boy’s life?” over and over.

    1. David Gorski says:

      It’s a tough one. Part of the answer is: Yes, we do want to save a little boy’s life, but there’s no evidence that Burzynski has any better chance of succeeding at saving Elisha’s life than conventional oncologists, and there’s a lot of evidence that Burzynski does harm. He’s killed at least one little boy through fatal hypernatremia due to his antineoplaston therapy (that we know of). Worse, publicizing Burzynski, which is what these campaigns are more about than helping a little boy with a brain tumor, through the campaign to get people to write to their legislators to lean on the FDA to allow compassionate use of antineoplastons for Elisha has the potential to cause great harm. So, no, no one wants Elisha to die, but what is being done does not make that death any less likely, while at the same time it does great harm by promoting an ineffective and toxic cancer treatment.

      1. Kira says:

        Thank you. It’s very helpful to have it so clearly expressed.

        Do you mind if I share your reply on my Facebook?

      2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

        I think the worst and cruelest part of Burzynski’s approach is the false hope. Yes, chances are these children (and adults) will die no matter what we do. But for a parent to be told, with an enormous amount of confidence, that their child will probably be cured, is horrible. To enrich yourself, then flog the child’s story to drive up your revenue? Probably not illegal, but definitely despicable. Burzynski might not be a criminal, but he’s definitely a shitheel who deserves to get cancer.

    2. Dr Robert Peers says:

      Could somebody please email me some more detail about Raphael Cohen? I am at drrobertpeersATme.com, and I hope I might have something to help him, in this awful predicament. As I have said in my previous post, above, I have concocted a very promising anti cancer cocktail of natural products. It is based on inositol, certain fatty acids, grape seed extract, milk thistle and other cheap ingredients with lab-based evidence of anti cancer action. The inositol is the main ingredient, and Dr Aneko Bozsik’s studies in Hungary suggest we need a high dose for best effect…my cancer patients take 6-8 teaspoons daily. That costs, in Australia, only $3-$4 a day. I first became interested in inositol in 1999, from its pioneering use by Israeli psychiatrists Dr Joseph Levine and Dr Robert Belmaker, in Beer-Sheeva. Regarding its possible use in disorders other than anxiety, depression etc., I was concerned that it might activate a key enzyme called protein kinase C, that seems to be a bad guy in tumour development. But to my great relief, further study showed that inositol had quite the opposite effect, as shown by Prof A M Shamsuddin at the University of Maryland (who has written two popular books on inositol). I also found Prof Rana P Singh’s detailed inositol studies, at Denver, confirming its anti cancer potential. What has never been done with this remarkable seed sugar, is to give a really high dose…and that is quite easy to do, and even cheap. It is a sweet white powder, soluble in water or juice. The only side effect is gassy stomach…and sometimes loose bowel…but this can be controlled by dividing the dose into two teaspoons four times daily, or for a child, just one teaspoon each time. By the way, I am not a naturopathic dreamer…I am a medical graduate of Melbourne University, trained in hard ball pharmacology. But as a family physician with a deep interest in nutrition, but no research lab or drug development facilities, I am forced to turn to Nature for help. In my second year of medical training, in 1964, we had lectures in Material Medica…a now defunct study of natural Physick…herbs, minerals etc., that Physicians used to use centuries ago. I can’ t remember anything about it, but I do know that Nature has a few tricks up her sleeve!

      1. David Gorski says:

        Could somebody please email me some more detail about Raphael Cohen? I am at drrobertpeersATme.com, and I hope I might have something to help him, in this awful predicament. As I have said in my previous post, above, I have concocted a very promising anti cancer cocktail of natural products. It is based on inositol, certain fatty acids, grape seed extract, milk thistle and other cheap ingredients with lab-based evidence of anti cancer action.

        No. Go somewhere else to peddle your unproven treatments. what you are proposing to do is, to me, no different than what Burzynski is doing to the family.

        https://www.youtube.com/user/drrobertpeers

        1. Sawyer says:

          Thanks for chasing down the youtube channel. I eagerly await the the twelve Noble Prize announcements we’re going to hear regarding his work. Throw in the cancer claims and he’s at a baker’s dozen. Maybe Bob Peers can team up with Bob Sears for some vaccine research?

          1. David Gorski says:

            Actually, I just Googled his name, and his YouTube channel was one of the links on the first page. I suspect that he might have given me some blog fodder, either for here or for my not-so-super-secret other blog. :-)

            1. Dr Robert Peers says:

              Sorry to get back to you so late, David, but I have been very busy writing a paper [Lezionen aus dem ewige Hydra, fuer menschlich lebensdauer..."Lessons from immortal Hydra, for human lifespan, immune response, diet therapy and tissue regeneration."], for submission to the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, in London. I have discussed the contents at length with Hydra expert Prof Dr Thomas Bosch, of the Zoologische Institut in Kiel, and hope he can find the time to co-author it with me.

              He has identified what drives the incredible endurance and replicative capacity of the three stem cell lineages in Hydra: the FOXO transcription factor–which my myo-inositol ACTIVATES! Ha-ha. He likes it. Anyway, more science later.

              As for that stuff that you do–medicine or something–you seem to be concerned that my proposed cancer cocktail ingredients–the main one is inositol–are unproven. It is true that no big human trials have been done, but at least the work has now moved on from [very detailed and impressive and "biologically plausible"] cell culture studies, to a real live critter: see on PubMed TRAMP AND INOSITOL–and the hits on this transgenic mouse prostate cancer include significant Gorskian ANTI-ANGIOGENESIS.

              Oh, I almost forgot–I look forward to your blogs on my inductive nutritional hypotheses, as I welcome skeptical criticism of my work, which you have seen on YouTube. I routinely and rigorously critique my own work from a professional angle, but comments and queries from amateurs unversed in Newtonian inductive reasoning might help me refine a few minor points.

              But keep in mind, if you intend publicly demeaning and libelling me on your “other” blog, that when you bite on a marshmallow, that turns out to be a lump of purest marble, you are going to break your teeth. Would you care to see some references first?

              Finally, if you consider my well-intentioned offer to help this Jewish child so reprehensible and unprofessional–and my hypotheses so suspect that I may be putting my patients in danger–why don’t you make a complaint ["notification"] to the Medical Board of Australia? See the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency web site for details.

              I have a particular interest in improving the health of Jewish people, whose diet is surprisingly poor, because the father of my very beautiful grand-daughter Isabella is a former Israeli farmer and soldier. I am preparing a diet project for our large local Jewish community, whose diet is particularly bad.

              1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

                Dr. Peers.

                You seem to be startlingly impressed by your inductive capacity and grasp of the research. To the point that you make the rather amazingly ballsy offer you do above, to provide unproven cancer treatments to a dying child.

                You may have the best of intentions. You may have a well-rounded set of expertise and appropriate knowledge of a multitude of biochemical pathways. You may be willing to provide all this for free.

                You are still attempting to provide false hope to the family of a dying child, and the child himself. This is unethical, and even with your good intentions, contemptible.

                If you are convinced that your research and knowledge will lead you to some sort of cancer panacea. That would be fantastic (despite cancer being a multitude of different diseases, united only by a very broad conceptualization of how they all start). The appropriate, ethical, rational, reasonable and above all, non-shitty answer to this knowledge, would be to follow the proper research protocols to develop this into something that could be used in human trials. Apparently you have moved this from petri dishes (where, let’s not forget, it’s easy to kill cancer cells) to a single animal model? Mazel tov. Please take the next step – testing it in a second animal, well-before moving on to humans. Do your science slowly and carefully, with proper controls and adequate protocols. Replicate. Disseminate. And above all – lose your conviction that you are right. Let the properly controlled data convince you (and more importantly, oncologists), don’t let the apparent dramatic nature of the process convince you.

                You see, even if you are right, even if you can help this one little boy – by jumping straight into (unethical) single-subject trials, you’re making things worse. That’s what quacks do. Quacks get ignored by mainstream science, and must instead appeal to, and sell to, customers directly, which makes real oncologists tune out. If you’re onto something, even though a small number of people who you could have helped will die – over the long term, your research and results (if valid) will be embraced more quickly. Your revolution will be more thorough. Your name will be respected, and your methods will save millions, rather than the mere dozens that you can help if it’s just you alone administering them individually.

                Plus, I’ll stop calling you an unethical asshole.

                And of course – always remember that the history of science and medicine is littered with people who thought they were geniuses (particularly people convinced of their greatness when operating outside of their expertise). If you want to be great – prove it by humbly working with data to see if you are wrong.

                And please stop wasting your time here. Go convince the Cochrane collaboration instead. A far, far better way to apply your knowledge than the comments section, where the geniuses are greatly outnumbered by the crazy people convinced of their own genius.

              2. Dr Robert Peers MBBS [Unimelb] says:

                Thank you William for some rare encouragement! But if you don’t mind, I will continue being an asshole–to my medical colleagues. In proper English, we spell that “arse”, and it comes from German, as in “arschlicker”, which I will refrain from translating.

                Why do you anxious Americans so readily jump to conclusions?–nowhere do I claim that inositol might cure cancer [but it may acquire a very important place as an adjunct to chemotherapy].

                For example, this Jewish boy’s brain tumour–a medulloblastoma–can respond to a few drugs like cyclophosphamide, vincristine and CISPLATIN.

                But he has now become drug-resistant. Now it so happens that inositol may restore drug sensitivity with tamoxifen and adriamycin, while it is known [in lab tests] to synergize with etoposide in lung cancer and CISPLATIN in ovarian cancer.

                You must see FALASCA PENTAKISPHOSPHATE on Google, to read the whole 2004 paper [via a Wikipaedia ref], as PubMed has only Marco Falasca’s abstract. What he says is that cisplatin does things inositol doesn’t do, but there is a good synergistic effect when both are combined.

                This hoped-for synergy, plus inositol’s proven anti-angiogenic effects, might tip the balance, and stop the child’s tumour growing. But who would dare offer it–do we just let him die?

                As for taking inositol further in cancer, there are major preventive implications, in that long-term high-inositol diet [grains, nuts, legumes, citrus] may either prevent or slow down many common cancers, as they develop.

                After all, its putative anti-cancer properties were first inferred from a Finnish study showing less bowel cancer in subjects eating a high cereal fibre diet. I suspect that inositol-rich diet, even when not totally preventive, reduces cancer aggressiveness and metastasis, making surgical cure easy.

                But for treatment, a high supplementary dose will be needed, to achieve tissue levels of 1 mM or more, that one needs to differentiate or kill cancer cells. See on PubMed BOZSIK AND INOSITOL, and SINGH R P AND INOSITOL.

                Prof Singh’s colleague in Denver, Prof Rajesh Agarwal, is the one who did the critter studies, giving up to 2% IP6 in the drinking water, to transgenic prostate cancer mice, with stirring results, especially on tumour mass and blood supply.

                One very poor human study [BASIC I AND INOSITOL] used only 6 gm/day in a few folks with liver metastases from bowel cancer–nothing much seen, except for a good protective effect on blood cell formation, against chemo.

                I would give 40-60 gm/day–still cheap at the price.

                Inositol has been used in a lung cancer prevention study [Google or PubMed SPIRA INOSITOL]; exploiting its known ability to inhibit the key cancer enzyme PI3Kinase–which is often activated early in lung cancer development–Dr A Spira showed very good inhibition of the enzyme, with 18 gm/day.

                Of course, we would need to follow these guys a long time, to prove a preventive action against later full-blown cancer.

                My own research is through reading and reasoning–I am a poor but honest family physician, with no lab and no trial capacity, and zero academic affiliation.

                But I do hope to squeeze some money out of a super-rich Aussie philanthropist–a prostate cancer survivor–to start a Natural Cancer Therapies research centre, in the beautiful Victorian spa resort of Daylesford.

                There, we would offer to cancer patients a cheap adjunctive cocktail of inositol, polyunsaturates etc., in co-operation with their oncologists. For payment, we will bulk bill Medicare, so patients pay only for the cocktail–maybe $30-40 a week.

                A special weapon I have devised, fully vitamin E-depleted high-poly safflower oil, would be used as needed, to restore and enhance lipid peroxidation in cancer cell membranes [it is partly depleted seed oils that cause Alzheimer's (Peers R, 1993, New Zealand Med J) and which may account for their much lower cancer risk].

                One big cancer pathway not fully covered by inositol, the ras G-protein system, may require palm oil tocotrienol plus a statin drug, to impair isoprenoid synthesis. I got this from Huan-Biao Mo and Charles Elson, deep in the heart of Texas.

                I guess statins are not “natural”, but we’ll use them anyway.

                Finally, I hope to help local cancer immunologist Martin Ashdown, to set up treatment clinics in Melbourne and Daylesford, and put his brilliant timed immunotherapy into practice. See ASHDOWN TIMED IMMUNOTHERAPY on Google–amazing Australian breakthrough, that may lift complete remission rates dramatically. This guy IS a genius!

                We here Aussies have always led the way in immunology–Sir MacFarlane Burnet got a Nobel Prize, while unsung hero Dr Robert North set up the Trudeau Inst in Saranac Lake, upper NY State, and it was North who first noted a treatment-timing effect, giving cyclophosphamide to cyclophosphamide-RESISTANT cancer mice–lateral thinking, man–NOT to hit the [resistant] tumour cells, but to hit the T suppressor cells that breed rhythmically, and shut down anti-cancer T effector cells, in a regular immune system homeostatic cycle deduced by Ashdown. Brilliant, and potentially curative–one angry, well-informed cytotoxic T cell can kill 25, 000 cancer cells. And for follow-up, the proven anti-ageing effects of inositol may enhance immune memory, by increasing the pool of long-lived, self-replicating, antigen-experienced T-memory stem cells. I worked that bit out myself. If it works, you have to visit Daylesford, and buy me a beer at the Savoia Hotel, and a pizza at Ruben’s.

              3. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

                I don’t care how you spell it, criticizing someone else’s quackery in order to promote your own makes you an asshole, and a rather non-self aware one at that.

                I’m not an American.

                I’ll note an assumption that threads through your responses – that natural is somehow better, or superior to unnatural. Bullshit. Smallpox and polio are natural, as is caffeine, which is quite lethal in sufficient doses. The search for a “natural” cancer cure, as somehow superior to “unnatural” cures, is an absurd one. Nature is an ever-changing set of internesting loops that is utterly indifferent to our survival. The idea that there’s a magical cancer panacea waiting for us to discover it is absurd.

                And you shouldn’t be shilling cures, no matter how well-intentioned or cheap they may be, to patients without proof of efficacy.

        2. MadisonMD says:

          I eagerly await the youtube video on curing cancer from the Melboure GP. It will be so much more convincing than the dry articles oncologists write in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

          The Peers message seems to boil down to:
          Inositol = panacea
          refined vegetable oils = bugaboo;
          replace with natural olive, cold-pressed and fish oils

          This, according to Peers, will cure what ails you or prevent what might.

      2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

        Jesus Christ. This is a post about an unproven series of assertions by Burzynski about antineoplastons and cancer treatment. You apparently agree that they are unproven assertsions. And offer…more unproven, untested assertions and a claim that “nature will heal”. You asshole. How the fuck do you think Raphael Cohen got cancer in the first place? Here’s a hint – cancer is a natural process.

        Nature doesn’t give a shit if any of us live or die.

        Asshole.

        1. Calli Arcale says:

          Yeah, it takes a pretty astonishing amount of chutzpah (or stupidity) to come into a thread castigating a quack for taking advantage of a dying child and then ask for that child’s contact information so he can take further advantage of him!

          Dr Peers, what on Earth gave you the slightest idea that this forum would be amenable to supporting your direct-marketing of these unproven remedies to a suffering family?

  8. Kimmy says:

    ‘it does great harm by promoting an ineffective and toxic cancer treatment’

    I guess my friend Hannah Bradley (or her partner Pete Cohen) wouldn’t agree, having been cancer free for 8 months having been treated by Dr Burzynski with ANP. Doctors in UK sent her home to die (Astrocytoma).
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH6Wk_vhQWc

    But hey, she must be out to try to scam you all, it can’t be true, she must be fake.

    The startling fact that most people arrive at Burzynski’s clinic weeks away from death, cut and burned by Chemo with ZERO immunity… Would one presume that influence outcomes achieved by the clinic I wonder??

    This terrible disgusting ‘false hope’ that Burzynski gives, as you like to call it, is not as terrible and disgusting as the inaccurate facts parading on this thread. And the fact that you do more harm than good but utterly dismissing things not within the remit of your knowledge.

    Go ahead, place your trust in the FDA. Every drug ever recalled by the FDA after rigorous phase I, II, III trialling was first proven to be safe and effective by the FDA.

    Not to mention the recent US Supreme Court also made a ruling on lawsuits against drug companies for fraud, mislabeling, side effects and accidental death. From now on, 80 percent of all drugs are exempt from legal liability.

    In other words, if the FDA says something is safe, it doesn’t matter if that decision is wrong or is the result of lies, fraud or deception on the part of the world’s pharmaceutical companies.

    And there’s no way to sue the FDA for being wrong and costing millions of unsuspecting Americans their lives. Of course not!!!
    That result leaves 240 million Americans unprotected from an industry responsible for more preventable deaths in the US than any other cause. Wake up!! RESEARCH IT YOURSELVES!

    Not only do the pharmaceutical companies no longer have to worry about safety or side effects, they are exempt from the multi-million dollar court-imposed settlements awarded to victims of their drugs, then God bless America and the rest of the world.

    So yeah, parade your ill formed opinions about. You talk about false hope, but by denying facts and by forming one sided opinions, you help NOBODY. Carry on with those wonderful opinions. And lets hope you all never find yourselves in the terrible predicament that some of these people do.

    Why is nobody EVER balanced on these topics? As for telling Dr Peers to trial his advice, made me laugh out loud!

    I quote:
    “If you are convinced that your research and knowledge will lead you to some sort of cancer panacea. That would be fantastic (despite cancer being a multitude of different diseases, united only by a very broad conceptualization of how they all start). The appropriate, ethical, rational, reasonable and above all, non-shitty answer to this knowledge, would be to follow the proper research protocols to develop this into something that could be used in human trials. Apparently you have moved this from petri dishes (where, let’s not forget, it’s easy to kill cancer cells) to a single animal model? Mazel tov. Please take the next step – testing it in a second animal, well-before moving on to humans. Do your science slowly and carefully, with proper controls and adequate protocols. Replicate. Disseminate. And above all – lose your conviction that you are right. Let the properly controlled data convince you (and more importantly, oncologists), don’t let the apparent dramatic nature of the process convince you.”

    You guys clearly do not come from a research background!! And have absolutely no idea of what it involves or the costs implicated, therefore its a poor shout, a very poor shout indeed. It is indicative of your position.

    1. weing says:

      “Go ahead, place your trust in the FDA. Every drug ever recalled by the FDA after rigorous phase I, II, III trialling was first proven to be safe and effective by the FDA.”

      Let me rephrase this.
      Place your trust in Burzynski instead. The FDA has had to recall some drugs even after phase I, II, III trials. Burzynski is such a genius, he doesn’t need no stinking trials.

    2. David Gorski says:

      @kimmy

      Actually, I do come from a research background, as do many of our readers. In addition to my MD, I have a PhD in cellular physiology and have obtained research funding from sources as varied as the Conquer Cancer Foundation of ASCO, the NIH, the Department of Defense, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and more. True, I’m not the most-published researcher for someone at my level, but I am a researcher, and published a couple papers on tumor angiogenesis in the 1990s that Juda Folkman himself used to cite as excellent papers, while others of my papers have been published in high impact journals such as Cancer Research, Clinical Cancer Research, Blood, Molecular and Cellular Biology, the Journal of Biological Chemistry, and even Nature (although, admittedly just as a co-author, rather than as a first author or senior author). So I’m afraid you’re wrong that I don’t come from a research background. I’m an academic cancer surgeon and a translational researcher.

      Believe it or not, there is not a single one of us on the editorial or writing staff of SBM, least of all myself, who is not happy that Hannah Bradley is doing well. Seriously. I went into surgical oncology because I wanted to cure people with cancer; I hate seeing people die of cancer even more than I hate seeing people die of other causes. That being said, however, I simply remain unconvinced that Stanislaw Burzynski’s antineoplastons had anything to do with Hannah’s good fortune right now, no matter how much Pete Cohen tearfully asserts in the video you linked to that Burzynski saved Hannah’s life. The reasons are summarized in a post I did a year ago:

      http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/stanislaw-burzynskis-cancer-success-stories/

      Clearly, Hannah and Pete intensely believe that Burzynski saved Hannah, and that’s entirely understandable. Hannah is still alive and apparently doing well after having been told that her odds were very poor and having chosen Burzynski’s treatment. However, anecdotes do not equal data, and her case is not compelling evidence that Burzynski’s antineoplastons are some sort of miraculous cure for brain tumors, nor is an eight month time period that much time. Moreover, their behavior, at least with respect to Hannah’s scans, hasn’t changed. When Hannah had her first setback, Pete stopped publishing her scans. Up until that time, he eagerly published each one that showed tumor regression. Later he was kind of vague about what was going on and simply said that the scans were “stable.” In the video he appears to contradict himself, saying that the scans were “stable” at one point and at another point saying the tumor was gone, leaving only a fluid-filled hole in Hannah’s head. If that’s the case, then why doesn’t he post her most recent scans? No, I fear that Hannah’s tumor has not completely disappeared. This is one speculation, however, that I hope is in error. However, I fear that it is not.

      Hannah and Pete also believe that “skeptics” have savagely attacked them online, when such is demonstrably not the case. In the case of this skeptic, I have tried very, very hard not to do anything that can even be mistaken for attacking Hannah and Pete. What they perceive as “attacks” on them are actually criticisms of Burzynski and my analysis of Hannah’s case based on Hannah and Pete’s public utterances in blogs, vlogs, and Pete’s movie, Hannah’s Anecdote. In any case, I hope Hannah continues to do well.

      I do wonder, however: Do you know how Laura Hymas is doing? Rereading that old post of mine reminded me about her. She and her husband have gone silent for months now, since not long after their wedding in October. I hope she is also continuing to do well, but I’m worried that she is not, given the long Internet silence.

    3. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      Wow, eight months. Cancer never comes back after eight months.

      But hey, [Hannah] must be out to try to scam you all, it can’t be true, she must be fake.

      Hannah is not trying to scam us or be a fake – she is being used by Burzynski, and if she dies of cancer (or runs out of money) there will be no reflection of this fact by Stan, ever. I’m sure she sincerely believes that Burzynski helped her. That doesn’t mean she’s right.

      you do more harm than good but utterly dismissing things not within the remit of your knowledge.

      You know what would help the “remit of our knowledge”? If Stanislaw Burzynski carried out actual clinical trials and published them in the scientific literature. Why hasn’t he done this?

      Go ahead, place your trust in the FDA. Every drug ever recalled by the FDA after rigorous phase I, II, III trialling was first proven to be safe and effective by the FDA.

      Two points:
      1) Yes, but also every drug ever not recalled after being found safe and effective – and there are thousands, even millions of those.
      2) Why doesn’t Stan test his drugs in the appropriate trials and submit the results to the FDA? What prevents him from doing so, aside from it interfering with his ability to make money?

      Not only do the pharmaceutical companies no longer have to worry about safety or side effects, they are exempt from the multi-million dollar court-imposed settlements awarded to victims of their drugs, then God bless America and the rest of the world.

      Really? Also, doesn’t the fact that drugs and vaccines get recalled rather argue against the apparently-unlimited powers of drug companies?

      You guys clearly do not come from a research background!! And have absolutely no idea of what it involves or the costs implicated, therefore its a poor shout, a very poor shout indeed. It is indicative of your position.

      Yet somehow despite the costs of drugs, they do get trialed and approved. But Stan’s piss extracts never do. Why is that?

      And of couse, all of these red herrings and tangents, what do they have to do with the fact that Stanislaw Burzynski has failed to demonstrate that his piss extracts work, but his lawyer is on the public record as saying the current ongoing trials are a deliberate attempt to subvert the clinical trial and injunction process in order to keep making money? Why don’t you care about that?

  9. Andrey Pavlov says:

    But hey, she must be out to try to scam you all, it can’t be true, she must be fake.

    No, not at all. She is not scamming us – she was scammed by Burzynski. She is not fake, she is a rare case which is so common it even has its own cliche: “beating the odds.” Which doesn’t really make sense, the odds are the odds. And she was lucky enough to fall into the small percentage of people who must be on the tail end of a distribution. And she got the nicer tail end at that. We expect people like her to exist, regardless of what therapy did or didn’t do for her.

    And 8 months? I’m sorry to say that it isn’t quite so astounding. I truly and deeply hope that it persists, but the chances are not in her favor. But let me ask a question – if she ends up dying from the tumor in, say, 8 months from now, will you still believe that Burzynski’s treatment actually did anything? Or will it make more sense to you that she just happened to be one of the fortunate ones that survived longer than average?

    And the fact that you do more harm than good but utterly dismissing things not within the remit of your knowledge.

    See, now here is where you go completely off the rails. How on earth can that sound convincing, even to you. Not within the remit of our knowledge? Do you know who we are? Who the author of this particular post is? You’d do well to check it out – just click on the link with his name. It happens that Dr. Gorski is an MD/PhD who is a cancer surgeon and a cancer researcher, doing bench and clinical trials on cancer. If this is not “within the remit of [his] knowledge” then what is? And who is the one who gets to have it be their bailywick? Burzynski? The guy who never even completed a residency in internal medicine let alone a fellowship in oncology? Seriously?

    In other words, if the FDA says something is safe, it doesn’t matter if that decision is wrong or is the result of lies, fraud or deception on the part of the world’s pharmaceutical companies.

    But hey, if a single guy, who has published zero data and has zero evidence and has a huge amount to gain from his “treatments” says something is safe, it doesn’t matter if he is wrong because those he has turned into believers will defend him tooth and nail, with nary a critical thought to be found in all of it.

    So the FDA is corrupt and terrible and has the wool pulled over its eyes. But thank the sweet baby Jesus we have honest, upright, altruistic, and stupendous genius of the millenium Burzynski to tell us what really works.

    Wake up!! RESEARCH IT YOURSELVES!

    Ahem. I’ll point you again to the esteemed author here who actually does research on cancer and is vastly more credentialed, published, and knowledgeable than Burzynski on the topic. That and the mountains of documented research on Burzynski specifically archived right here for your reading pleasure.

    So how about you wake up and research it yourself? Because, believe it or not, we have!

    Why is nobody EVER balanced on these topics?

    2+2 = 7. What? You disagree? You think 2+2 = 4? Ha! Wake up and research it yourself! Why is nobody ever balanced on this topic! I mean, why can’t we 2+2=7 supporters get a balanced and fair shake. I mean really, stop being so mean and one sided! Clearly if I believe that 2+2=7 then the answer can’t be 4, that is just not balanced! Now, I’ll concede, unlike you dogmatic 2+2=4′ists, that I may not be right as well. See how intellectually honest I am, admitting I’m probably not quite right either? So the answer is probably something like 5.5, right in between our positions. See, when you even it out, you always get the right answer!

    You guys clearly do not come from a research background!! And have absolutely no idea of what it involves or the costs implicated, therefore its a poor shout, a very poor shout indeed.

    Now that is just utterly laughable.

    “Your statements disagree with my beliefs, therefore you can’t be researchers.” Despite the fact that we, um, are. Published at that! Which is more than can be said for Burzynski.

    1. kimmy says:

      “Do you know who we are?”
      Er, guys… Tone of voice here just makes you seem arrogant and up your own arses. Since you are in no mind to want to win me over, but just belittle, I guess that’s your perogative.

      Your responses to my quotes (Andrey Pavlov) show just how you herd towards one bias. But hey, that’s science. Silly me for thinking that perhaps, just perhaps, (Dr Gorski) might be different. I had read some excellent stuff along the way, but I should know by now, I should’ve learnt my lesson not to interfere.

      And you see, contrary to what you think, I have ‘seen’ the evidence of what ANP therapy can do. I still stand by saying you clearly cannot understand the cost implications of 3 phase trialling for ANP, from the candid remarks left earlier. You assume that because Hannah’s scans were not posted, that they did not exist. Cancer free for 8 months is not an achievement in your eyes??? I am going to end my discussion about Hannah, as you clearly are very very biased in your opinions and Pete & Hannah.

      Dr Borski, I did not need a list of your credentials. Much as I respect your position here, and actually believe and respect much of what you say. You really ought to get your minions to position this site in a less ‘we are God’ manner. It would add to your reputation trust me.

      ““Your statements disagree with my beliefs, therefore you can’t be researchers.” Despite the fact that we, um, are. Published at that! “”
      I did not say that. Oh but forgive me, I am just a mere small person of no significance…. But you are researchers… I must bow down, oh great one.

      You have NO idea of who I am!

      I’m disappointed I must admit, and I hold at this site not being balanced in its opinions and judgements… It has become like the stereotypical fight between religion and science. All I see, is bullshit from everyone, here on this site, Burzynski, FDA, and actually you’re all out for yourselves.

      So, I will end my waste of time on here, and wish you well. Dr Borski, I respect you and your work, that was never in question.

      Peace

      1. David Gorski says:

        And you see, contrary to what you think, I have ‘seen’ the evidence of what ANP therapy can do. I still stand by saying you clearly cannot understand the cost implications of 3 phase trialling for ANP, from the candid remarks left earlier. You assume that because Hannah’s scans were not posted, that they did not exist. Cancer free for 8 months is not an achievement in your eyes??? I am going to end my discussion about Hannah, as you clearly are very very biased in your opinions and Pete & Hannah.

        I’ll try one more time, because I’m sure that you will see this. (I’ve yet to encounter someone who huffed away in anger who didn’t come back to see if she got a response.) So here we go:

        1. A single case is not “seeing” the evidence. Anecdotes are the weakest form of evidence and the most likely to mislead. Consequently, seeing Hannah do well is not in itself good evidence that Stanislaw Burzynski cured her.
        2. The reason I mentioned the scans and how Pete no longer posts them is because the change in behavior was so obvious. Before, he was all, “Don’t take my word for it, look at the scans for yourself!” Now, he’s all, “Take my word for it. The tumor is gone!” Maybe it is, but given the incident a year ago when Pete and Hannah posted a video with bad news of the tumor seemingly increasing in size a bit, took it down after a brief period of time, and then remained relentlessly vague about what was going on with Hannah’s cancer for many months, perhaps you’ll forgive me if I remain skeptical. Of course, Pete and Hannah could eliminate my skepticism by posting her most recent scans.
        3. Again, I truly do hope Hannah is doing just as well as Pete and Hannah say she’s doing!
        4. Finally, I’m quite aware of how much phase III clinical trials cost. However, I’m also aware that all but one of Burzynski’s phase II trials have never been completed and that even that one has never had its complete results published. There’s also the little issue of the fact that Burzynski never intended those trials to answer the question of whether antineoplastons worked. He knows they work. The purpose of those trials was to allow him to keep using antineoplastons, as I documented here:

        http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/stanislaw-burzynski-the-early-years-part-1/

        Key quotes from a book written by Richard Jaffe, Burzynski’s lawyer, with my putting things in context:

        Jaffe in essence boasts about this in his book. Because Rep. Joe Barton had put such enormous pressure on the FDA through his Congressional hearings and bad publicity replete with crying cancer patients lamenting how they would die if Burzynski were shut down, in 1997-1998 the FDA was going to relent and let Burzynski apply to undertake clinical trials. In response, Burzynski put together a clinical trial known as CAN-1, which was basically a retrospective study of all the patients Burzynski had treated with ANPs up to that point in 1997. Listen to how Jaffe described it:

        So we decided to hit the FDA with everything at the same time. All of his current patients would be covered in a single clinical trial which Burzynski called “CAN-1.” As far as clinical trials go, it was a joke. Clinical trials are supposed to be designed to test the safety or efficacy of a drug for a disease. It is almost always the case that clinical trials treat one disease.

        The CAN-1 protocol had almost two hundred patients in it and there were at least a dozen different types of cancers being treated. And since all the patients were already on treatment, there could not be any possibility of meaningful data coming out of the so-called clinical trial. It was all an artifice, a vehicle we and the FDA created to legally give the patients Burzynski’s treatment. The FDA wanted all of Burzynski’s patients to be on an IND, so that’s what we did.

        This is Burzynski’s lawyer writing here. I thank him for his candor, particularly since he describes how the dozens of other clinical trials, 61 of which still show up on the ClinicalTrials.gov website, came into existence. According to Jaffe, it was not because Burzynski was so interested in knowledge and finding out whether ANPs work. It was because he already believed they worked and wanted to keep treating patients without interference:

        CAN-1 allowed Burzynski to treat all his existing patients. That solved the patients’ problems, but not the clinic’s. A cancer clinic cannot survive on existing patients. It needs a constant flow of new patients. So in addition to getting the CAN-1 trial approved, we had to make sure Burzynski could treat new patients. Mindful that he would likely only get one chance to get them approved, Burzynski personally put together seventy-two protocols to treat every type of cancer the clinic had treated and everything Burzynski wanted to treat in the future…Miracle of miracles, all of Burzynski’s patients were now on FDA-approved clinical trials, and he would be able to treat almost any patient he would want to treat!

        And for patients who didn’t fit into one of these seventy-three clinical trial protocols (CAN-1 plus the other seventy-two), there were always single-patient INDs, otherwise known as compassionate use protocols. I also can’t help but wonder what the alt-med believers who support Burzynski would say if I were to say about my cancer center something like, “A cancer center cannot survive on existing patients. It needs a constant flow of new patients.”

        Yes, from a very early time in the late 1970s to twenty years later in the 1990s to this very day, for Stanislaw Burzynski, clinical trials are but a means to an end, and that end is not scientific knowledge or to determine whether or not they work against cancer. The end is to allow Burzynski to treat cancer patients with ANPs.

        I stand by my assessment.

        1. PMoran says:

          Kimmy, we can be pretty sure that B’s treatment is ineffective, or at least not nearly as effective as B makes out.

          All alternative cancer treatments, even the most unlikely, produce a few seemingly impressive cases. When they are as rare in proportion to the number of patients treated as B’s are, we have a duty to look for other possible explanations for the apparent benefits, and these are usually not too difficult to find..

          I always felt that B’s “clinical studies” were a useful fiction for both sides. They saved the FDA from actions that might provoke lengthy legal battles, also public outrage at any perceived infringement upon their freedoms, while allowing B to practice with minimal interference.

          I once looked at some of the protocols for those studies and they were indeed a farce: — “insert name of cancer here” — type of thing.

      2. weing says:

        “It has become like the stereotypical fight between religion and science. All I see, is bullshit from everyone, here on this site, Burzynski, FDA, and actually you’re all out for yourselves.”
        I have no idea what this means. Do you have evidence that Burzynski and the FDA are giving you bullshit? What are you asking from them and from this site? You must be a very important person, like the pope or something, from your pronouncements, why would you ask anything of anyone?

      3. weing says:

        “Tone of voice here just makes you seem arrogant and up your own arses.”
        I wonder how you can pick up tone of voice. I can pick up your tone from your language. Can you pick up mine? Tee Hee!

        1. Chris says:

          Kimmy ended by saying: “So, I will end my waste of time on here, and wish you well. Dr Borski, I respect you and your work, that was never in question.”

          What kind of “tone of language” is apparent when she spells the author’s name so intentionally bad? I am sensing a bit of hypocrisy in her comments.

      4. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

        Kimmy, your tone comes across as arrogant and demanding. The content you wrap your tone around shows that you are pretty ignorant about science, research and even the person you are trying to defend, subscribe to illogical beliefs and have a lot of simple factual errors rattling around in your head. Not to mention, you will cherry pick and dissemble to support a point (vis. Dr. Gorski never said Hannah’s scans didn’t exist – he pointed out that they are unable for public comment despite being eagerly posted online in the past).

        I don’t know who you are, which is why I’m judging you on the content of your arguments. Which are terrible.

        I don’t know why it is so objectionable to state that Burzynski should adequately test his piss extracts before charging patients tens of thousands of dollars to administer them. Why is this such an extraordinary demand in your mind? Why is it wrong for Pfizer to make millions off of deceptive research and fraudulent clinical trials (which everyone here would agree is a problem that should be resolved) but it’s OK for Stan to make millions without conducting any research? That’s quite the double-standard, can you explain it to me?

  10. A S says:

    You guys are crazy if you do not understand the fraud that is the fda…Aspartame to countless “pay to play” drugs passed with bogus data…Research that you pharma groupies….Chemo has not changed in 40 freaking years…Chemicals…Gmo…Toxins…All kosher for the fda crew….You should all be fed round up…Sick liars…..Burz is not the enemy…..The crooked “make them sick” system is……Fda is about profit

    1. weing says:

      Evidence?

    2. windriven says:

      What silliness. Incoherent silliness at that.

      “Chemo has not changed in 40 freaking years”
      Really? The survival rate for breast cancer, to pick one, continues to rise. And you attribute this to … better acupuncture?

      Echoing weing, bring more than your paranoid delusions when you come here. Evidence is the coin of the realm. And you might learn to communicate complete thoughts in complete sentences. First, work on the complete thoughts. The firing of a neuron in the darkness is not a complete thought.

      1. A S says:

        Look around you silly worms. RESEARCH COURT DOCS…Research how the FDA gave known killers the OK….Antibiotics?….Put in everything until?…Were their new antibiotics in the pipeline CRUSHED by FDA games…How about other treatments?…..The whole system is a scam…Device makers with no human trials getting the OK!…Tainted blood,,, Tainted vaccines….COURT RECORDS BACKING IT….LAWsuits….Fines for fraud…PAID!…..Research egg heads!…Google merck and fines paid for fraud…..Vaccine fraud…RECENT PR..Early ground breaking faked trials…..Round up ready clinical test fraud….Natrasweet was rejected how many times?…WHY?…How many monsanto boys & girls have worked in the fda revolving door?……IN GOV?…WHY?….Are you fols?…..This medical sysytem was invented by the ROTHCHILD & STANDARD OIL crew…NGO “non profit” $…..LOL$$$….LIKE THE MEDICAL SCHOOLS….RESEARCH SILLY RABBITS!…Who was Abraham Flexner?….Who funded him?…….Why does the US gov & CHINA own the patent on marijuana/ CANNABINOIDS?……Study that mountain of KNOWN research……Everywhere…Here…North…South….In the EU…In Israel……How many studies?….Radiation and “bug spray”…lol…Radiation (Like GMO) CAUSES CANCER!…Wipes out your immune system…White blood count…..D U kills for how many years?….No wonder MD’s know nothing about food or nature….You are standard oil snake juice scam artists…Prozac pushers….Burz? I could care less about him……It is about options and freedom to try……My father cured one type already…By info with nature…The VA is mad and will not write out what the tests now show…WONER WHY?….He is trying to beat the other 2…..One is harder that he got at shipyards….Lungs!..The other we will have to see….Skin cancer CURED from a nature based product from peru…..Pheonix tears are not like blood from unicorns…It is real product….High pure THC OIL!……That has been shown all over the world to shrink cancer cells….Fact…..My dad will not break the law…So…He will try other methods or wait until it is legal where he lives….My wifes dad died with the traditional scam….The gov paid….Veteran!….Someone made a million + dollars….3 pills post treatments to aid sickness was $ 500 a pop……They never want cures….They want that 2 million dollars (Death) and trilliions for ” research”…….Run for the cure…Walk for the cure…….lol….Research who they give the money to…..Liars & Fools!…..Drink your tap….Get your shots….Eat out!…..Get on 8 daily pills!……The sun filled poor nations just laugh at you…They eat local & fresh..Always happy……Live longer!….?

        1. MadisonMD says:

          Dear A S:
          Nurse Ratched says it is time for your thorazine. It will help with the voices.

          1. windriven says:

            Yipes! And I would say he needs to get his at Costco in the convenient 55 gallon drum size.

            I wonder what the object is of communicating in sentence fragments?

            But I must say that the diatribe below is actually amusing. I’m actually chuckling.

            “Read you common core MSG filled “smarter”…..Talking like a snobby bisexual ivy league con artist will not work with most northern EU countries”

            Very ee cummings-like. But WTF does that even mean? Do they still do ECT? I’m trying to determine if A.S. had ECT gone wrong or if he is in desperate need of it.

            I think what can be extracted from that is that A.S. is opposed to the curriculum change known as ‘common core’, that MSG is related to lowered (or who knows, maybe raised) IQs, that those who don’t share his kaleidoscopic view of, ummm, reality also do not comply with his view of sexual orthodoxy and that Northern Europeans (fine Aryan stock?) are in some way immune to science and logic.

            Good grief. I almost feel bad about making fun of him.

      2. A S says:

        By the way ” smart guy” that sounds like another idiot that went to duke….Better results in a world were some cancers are up 2000%?…..Never asking why?…hummmmm……Cut & chemo!..lol…..Are you the same idiots warning the sheeple about the harm in vitamins?….Anything from CHINA needs to be avoided…But real sources?…Natural sources?…The body needs what is no longer in the soil…..D3!….C.. Eat right & Get LOTS OF SUN….HAHA….THE dark(Sun tan) world laughs at the western MD world putting toxins on to protect skin..lol….Vitamins…Minerals..Essential oils..Faty acids…….Local organic …Evil raw milk…Keifer…Organic apple cider vin…Natural iodine THAT USED TO BE PUT IN SALT & BREAD when REAL IQ’s were spiking!…..Read you common core MSG filled “smarter”…..Talking like a snobby bisexual ivy league con artist will not work with most northern EU countries….Old cultures…Or me…..The germans skip the flu shot…The super rich often go overseas for medical treatment?…Why do you wonder?..Because they never have power outages…(Less)….Kinda funny……No wonder US MD’s live 58 years avg…(Dead doctors tell no lies)…..And the OBESE run the clinics……300 lb & running vitals…lol..All that fat free and diet coke DICK…Or should I call you Rich….Hope you can read my post…..You seem to understand the trial medical garbage just fine………lol

        1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

          Better results in a world were some cancers are up 2000%?…..Never asking why?

          We know why. People are living long enough to develop cancers, because they aren’t dying of heart disease, vaccine-preventible diseases, malnourishment or contaminated water anymore. Though “2,000%” is ridiculous.

          But most of what you are saying is incoherent word salad and Gish gallop, so there’s not much point in debating. I’ll just say that you really appear willing to believe anything anyone says to you, as long as there’s some sort of “natural” product waiting for you at the end of their speech. I mean seriously, you will apparently buy any sort of food and pretend it is medicine so long as you are getting charged extra for it.

          Curious.

    3. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      Aspartame has been repeatedly studied for safety (see here for instance) and consistently no issues have been found at the levels ingested by humans as part of a balanced diet. It seems like you’re entering the conversation with an unshakeable assumption that aspartame is dangerous – if so, it’s unlikely that any data will change your mind.

      Chemicals, are ubiquitous, it’s a borderline meaningless word. Water is a chemical. Toxins is a similarly meaningless term. Chocolate is toxic for dogs, delicious for humans. Genetic modification is merely a more specific way of modifying existing crops, an improved version of the plant breeding used for tens of thousands of years.

      “The FDA is about profit” is a rather hypocritical statement to make, assuming it’s even true, given how much Stan charges in case management fees. If he cared about treating patients rather than profit, he could easily help more people out by shaving the “$10,000 per month” cost of treatment to a more reasonable number, or even waiving it completely for some. Which I’ve never seen him do. It really seems like he’s just exploiting people for money and I’m not sure why you are defending him.

      1. A S says:

        Sorry for many type o….Big hands little tablet…Spell check and computer aided systems are cheating….I am sure some of you text with your dumb down kids getting the whole vaccine pakage every few years to learn the sun revolves around the earth……(post those for a laugh)…1 in 4! Think its true….lol….Anyway…..Read and go look for yourself….Big OBESE pharma get billions in taxpayer cash to report their fraud findings..They are funded by the scam……..And 11 of the 12 OK’d drugs the other year were over $100.000 treatment$?…..No outrage from the peanut gallery?…..What burz has to is normal given the legal BS that the FRAUD FDA has done…In the past and now…LOST HOW MANY TIMES IN A COURT OF LAW….VERY DR WALLACH!..But you you trolls are shocked….Like in casablanca…..(Shocked!)..lol…Cheap drugs are at all time low on the shelves….But gov assisted snake oil…..Boom town!….Think what kind of world you fools are leaving behind…..Braaaando…….Its what plants crave!..lol

  11. Dave says:

    AS, when you post statements like “chemo has not changed in 40 years” you immediately lose credibility. There have been innumerable advances in chemo meds, tyrosine kinase inhibitors which have revolutionized therapy for CML and rituximab and other biologicals for other hematologic malignancies to mention a few, as well as better medications to support patients through the chemotherapy – much better antinausea meds and filgrastim to support white blood cell counts to name two. Try to at least do a little research before posting.

    1. Andrey Pavlov says:

      Dave, I think you may be wasting your time. I’m actually genuinely concerned about some sort of psychiatric issue. That wall of text is setting off pattern recognition bells in my head from my psychiatry rotation. Not much to go on, so obviously pure speculation but…. yeah.

      1. Sawyer says:

        The debate of whether or not to debate the cranks never ends, but I think it’s pretty clear that AS falls into the “DO NOT ENGAGE” category. Best to just walk away and hope for the best.

        1. A S says:

          Like I thought. No real debate. NO TAKING ON POINTS MADE. You people do not even read the insert warnings on poisons you push….Taught the world is flat and thats enough!…..Experts with 0 understanding…..lol…..Big pharma needs patents…Lots going “OUT” soon….Crushing comp… And strong arming M&A….Why spend billions when you can simply buy them up for pennies after bankruptcy…..Just give the FDA their cut!….100′s of drugs/devices took off the market?…How?…Why?…Because of fake IQ’s…Never checking real life data?…..A BURZ just needs a BIG partner…lol….But they would shelf it……..Maybe that is why the FDA (Track record of fraud) has spent BILLIONS chasing anything not BIG PHARM INC….Crushing hope for millions…..lets watch another ad on TV with 2 minute warning LEGAL talk for dry eys….Runny nose….Ask your doctor if DENIAL is right for you……Like I said you are frauds…Haha

          1. MadisonMD says:

            @A S. You are surprised that a random series of incoherent claims is not received with gratis?

            If you want engagement, you might try using sentences and paragraphs. The topic sentence can be your claim. The body of the paragraph should include evidence that supports your claim. The concluding sentence would be how the evidence supports your claim. If you make a coherent point and back it up with factual evidence, there could be a substantive discussion.

        2. windriven says:

          Sawyer, this hasn’t been a really great day … until now. A.S.S. has brought peals of laughter to my day.

          “but I think it’s pretty clear that AS falls into the “DO NOT ENGAGE” category.”

          More like the CANNOT ENGAGE category. For gears to engage they have to share the same pitch. With A.S. it is like trying to engage with a canteloupe.

      2. weing says:

        I think you are right

    2. A S says:

      Listen bro, 4 in my family have died in 2 years. I myself am a surviver of lymphoma…..I invest in the bio sector…Do the DD…Read the data…I have seen the bs that the fda does…..While giving passes to 1 phase drugs to the big boys….Games!..I would like my father to live…Stop thinking like a trained monkey….This not a game…survival rates..Phase 3 trials…STFU on things you know nothing about…Live it…Let you kids live through it……Say goodbye to those you love, Then come back with your blood letting bs…….The FDA is about current patent protection & helping profit the corporations that gave them bribes….Ever read the 13.000 pages of obumercare coming…..Costa Rica is looking good vs. Right by DUKE…Goodluck…..Bad info is not a real science…..Faked data is real disease…..Tesla was brilliant…Dreamer that invented almost everything modern….You guys are worshipping the sun…Never knowing its heat.

      1. windriven says:

        -”Listen bro, ”
        Dave is not your ‘bro.’
        -”4 in my family have died in 2 years.”
        Our condolences. What did they succumb to? Is there a genetic predisposition?
        -”I myself am a surviver(sic) of lymphoma”
        Congratulations.
        -”I invest in the bio sector”
        A little risky for my taste unless you keep a diversified portfolio across the sector.
        -”Do the DD”
        I always do due diligence on companies in which I might invest.
        -”Read the data”
        Lot’s of data. What shall I read?
        -”I have seen the bs that the fda does”
        ‘Bro’ – I run a couple of FDA regulated companies.
        -”While giving passes to 1 phase drugs to the big boys”
        Citation needed
        -”I would like my father to live”
        So would I.
        -”Stop thinking like a trained monkey”
        I don’t. Neither does Dave.
        -”This not a game”
        Nope.
        -”survival rates”
        Are usually quoted at 5 years – presuming we’re still talking cancer
        -”Phase 3 trials”
        Difficult and not always clear in result for either safety or efficacy.
        -”STFU on things you know nothing about”
        Is this dictate self-referential or what?
        -”Tesla was brilliant”
        Yes, he was. Are we still talking cancer now? Or shall we discuss the merits of alternating current over direct current for long distance transmission?

  12. A S says:

    In life or “science” you need it spelled out for you? ?…Let me type… s l o w… for you….This silly response fest might have worked with the frat boys…..Theory intellectual masterbate’n…muffy….Buffy…..Snookems…haaa..haaa…mmmmm……….Holy tuna tar tar……Start with the fda fraud!…Huge mistakes…..Why allow chemicals in food that no other country does?….People get shot in CHINA for poisoning food…Do you need a grant to think.?…Gay porn?….Programs can spell check and write proper form FOR YOU…..You can just talk…Makes idiots best seller ny list…But you guys are wanna be “code” breakers..lol……..”SCIENCE” forum…HELLO#$&!…If you need a map? …My GOD…(LOL)….Take merck and the vaccine fraud that they admitted to in COURT…….and run with it!….(smile)

    1. windriven says:

      “Let me type… s l o w… for you….”

      Don’t type slow, A.S. Type coherently. Are you on methamphetamines right now? You might want to wait till you come down some. Then try one complete sentence: subject, verb, object.

      Example: Sally ran home. Sally is the subject of the sentence. Subjects are almost always nouns. The verb is ran. Verbs usually describe an action though that action can be passive. The object, again usually a noun, is the entity that the action is directed at, in this case ‘home’.

      Practice this a few times. We’ll have a quiz next week. If you do well on it we can move to adjectives. These wonderful parts of speech bring color and tone to our communications. They can be ever so much fun to work with.

      1. A S says:

        Read it or ignore it….I will type this way…You guys care about the crap…Dress…Looks…The smartest people on the planet are a mess…Most evil/Richest are crazy….I am sorry going half cocked….All of us will be getting a real education soon…….From the chemtrails that were sprayed nonstop before this storm to what monsanto H F round up corn syrup now in everything…Fukyoushima goodness blowing in…(Under reporting and changing safe levels)…IT WILL TOUCH YOU & THOSE YOU LOVE…SORRY…You seem slightly open to thinking……..Hope is eternal…Another 2001 is coming….To be blamed on freedom lovers…lol…. The gov is prep’n…..Alot of rats have moved out of the country with their loot…..Lots of bullets bought….Agency boys…..My dad was a radio man in during the bay of pigs,,,, ONI are funny guys….You know….The types…The office were the missle hit the pentagon next to the desk looking into missing trillions at the pentagon……The day before Rumsfeld held ma press conf….Sept 10…..Same day BUSH signed the invasion order…(Know any retired brass?)….Its a program…Food…Water… Climate…….Try understanding basic physics and watch WORLD TRADE 7 go down again….Then think about the FDA and the $ again….GMO….(Why are 10.000′s tanks in the US now)……Weak & Sick are easy to control……This is just part of the matrix…Peace brother…….I hope you are smart & wise….I wish you well….(wink)

      2. A S says:

        Please look back in a few years……Maybe you will sound like the crazy one…..haha……Best of luck to all the real people looking for answers…..RESEARCH if you need it…(Truth)…From coconut oil to those that can no longer recall the faces of their kids…..To HIGH THC for those wise enough to follow 1000′s of years of history…Hemp and opium made of 60% of pre ABRAHAM FLEXNER med bag….Local doctors…(Washington…aka 1st potus..used it……Grew it!)..Along with other natural grown goodness…Study tactics used by UK doctors before petro plastics bs…Or modern monopoly for profits….Study eastern remedies..GREEK…Roman…DIG!….Compare…DR WALLACH..(FDA LOST)….DR GROUP……….VS. LIMITS ON LAWSUITS..(treating vs. Curing)….Studies all over the world………………GOD has a place for those that aid evil for money…First car was electric….First ford ran on peanut oil………Uboats during WW2 ran on both……..WHAT DO YOU DRIVE LOL?…………..Funny how todays “smarters” love the (Rare earth min) Toyota PRIUS……All tech is NSA…..in-Q-tel funded IBM patents…..Darpa baby……Wake up to reality……LOL…..Last post frat boys….Better have a rifle when the food stamps stop..SNAP!…..C-YAH……lol

  13. A S says:

    WE have a winner…Signs of life of on the planet….What do you think about the FDA ? YOU RUN 2 COMPANIES AND THINK WHAT?…..Small bio risky?….Ah yeah….1000% returns on FDA ok is……Risky….(Keeping your money in BS banks are worse)….If it were 2 years ago I would tell you to invest in legal weed stocks…..(opinion) Mjna….hemp….Phot….Medbox!….etc,…lol…..4 years ago was SIRI…….Anyway…..Right now ..avax…Ctic….And “evil” “working” HEB might be a good fight for lower cost risk reward…(Future black flag bio)..Spec……As for BURZ….What systems allows such fraud while forcing BURZ inc. to treat these poor people in this manner…EVERY MUST BE IN A TRIAL…While in africa & china anything goes…Their monopoly…Their crime family…Their rules…….The FDA has the black eye here…Research it…..The more you spend the worse the population gets……LOOK AT THE FACTS…..BRILLIANT!….800 trillion $’s in derivative fraud is gonna blow soon…Take down the markets and force hard changes soon…..Banking fraud….FDA fraud….EPA FRAUD…DOJ (Research gun walking program)……..You name it…….Why focus on BURZ?….more have been helped by him than most “safe drugs”…..How many kids now on some form of drug?…Part B helping?…….Try to focus on the meat in my crazy post…..Try to debunk goverment and court docs…….I might not be your bro….But I admire you trying to respond in the matrix fantasy….FDA= FRAUD….When the bankers pull the $ plug, Watch how the science changes…….$800.000.000.000 TRILLION ON THE BOOKS OF US BANKS….90 trill on JPM alone…..Funding what?….Fraud at the FDA…ama…..Fraud at the sec….Fraud by both political parties……Sick nation only getting worse = fraud….Keep eatinf fraud if you wish…VERITAS!….Peace…(smile)

  14. MTTurvey says:

    A S, no-one knows what you’re talking about, dearie. Have a cup of tea and come back when you’re feeling better.

  15. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    Wow. How many period keys do you think AS goes through in a day? At least they’re not exclamation points. Seriously, my spacebar doesn’t get that much of a workout in a day.

    1. A S says:

      The best coment here was aspartame(once monsanto-searle- as in agent orange round up) has been studied to be safe!…My god..ARE YOU A FOOL OR PAID TROLL?…What kind of research do you people do?…HAHA…as for vaccines helping the population live longer…(The amish seem to be better off..lol)…Another hoot…Look up charges and fines paid by merck for fraud…..READ THE INSERTS dumb asses…The legal stuff matters….Thats why it is there…Good products to not need gov waivers for damages….Nutrasweet has a long long long history of failure when the FDA had real ind. Thinking people working for it….And that new head that came to the FDA to push through natrasweet?…How long did he stay and who DID work forvafter leaving?….(HAHA)……Ahhhh…Did you buy your education mail order?….The FDA oks many many chemicals in food that get you sent to prison EVERWHERE ELSE……Whats next D U is safe…..Radiation helps memory?……FOOLS….RESEARCH…..USE THE “google”….Look up cases….Fines…DOCUMENT$.Years of stuff….GMO is good but raw milk is bad…..Bullets shot in the brain give life!..(Haha)…Mercury is good for babies..lol..BTW kids cancers have gone up how much over the past 40 years?…..Spikes as high as what % ?….THINK & RESEARCH!….You people should work for the FDA!….Throw out the dead & sick rats from the “study” and all is well with the world…HIV IN FACTOR 8?…Known and still shipped!…LOOK TROLLS!!!…it is not hidden….Just like their ” Dont test (past 6 months) Dont find……Long term studies on GMO?…..Do not search and never find….Thank GOD subway is giving in to the outrage of SHOE PLASTIC in their bread…What is pink slime?…..What chemical is not ok by the FDA?…LOL….Any long term studies on 1000′s of them?…..From pink slime to you name it on most labels…..You guys are blind idiots……May your families enjoy the advancements….lol

      1. weing says:

        @ASS,
        So you have a google U diploma? All I can say is, you get what you pay for.

        1. mousethatroared says:

          He’s like Bob Dobbs after a slack-ectomy.

          Don’t understand that? Check the google.

        2. A S says:

          No baby huey….I grow up mainly overseas….Old culture…..When you shitbirds write a four education from the states…We correct it as high school….lol…The best part is english was not my first language…So try again…Research nutrasweet….Factor 8 and hiv….The obese preaching to the world…Very funny….Starts with dumb down pre k and high fructose/ aspartame(new nanotame) baby formula……All theory hat no cattle leads to derivatives and default!….Rigging scores for kids that can not tie their shoes by age 10….HAHA…YOUR DOING A GREAT JOB BROWNY….(smile)

          1. Chris says:

            Please call someone you trust.

      2. Chris says:

        “My god..ARE YOU A FOOL OR PAID TROLL?”

        Oh, deer:
        http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-pharma-shill-gambit/

        A S, do you have some family nearby? Perhaps you should call someone you trust and talk to them. You need someone who will listen to you, and this is not the proper venue.

        1. A S says:

          Ok…..I have had my fun…..You guys can now go back to spreading your lies…Never researching for yourself.. Taught what to think!…Brilliant!..Go with GOD trolls….Get that position….Fund the scam…..Get your mercury and alcoa flu shot…lol..My family is done with your bs fake science and its results…Only the US leads the world in all these diseases..(Apart from the amish..lol)…Clean air act= chemtrails….Clean water = Fracking….DEPT of EDUCATION= Where in the world?……Diet food = 800 lb sad beasts….Fuckyoushima is gonna make you go coco for coco puffs……Growth hormone, msg, GM fructose, and antibiotics in all your food makes sense…Esp with coming resistance issues coming…(Can you say ooops)..Drink the punch…Take the shot….Be all you can be…LEAD!…HAHA….MY Last post my plastic loving sheeple….Take care….Think of me when you fav drug gets pulled and you join the class action lawsuit……Soon the printing press will fail and the dedt holders will foreclose on the countries real assets……Will it be hillary or another bush?…Both CFR and banking storm troopers..lol…Enjoy the pay more for less affordable care act…13000 pages of silent death……..I will enjoy the better care with better results away from the covert prison state……Goodbye!…”Educated” fools…Get those boosters every 6 years,,.Best of luck BURZ!

          1. MadisonMD says:

            Hint: Google ‘Elements of Style’

      3. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

        YOUR…word Salad MAKEs …. you ………. look like a crAazy person!!!!!!

        ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

        1. MadisonMD says:

          That was cool WLU. My browser printed all those periods on one line. You could have semi-hidden some text out there.

          ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….AS_IS_ASS

        2. mousethatroared says:

          Between A S and SSR, I’m beginning to think that Science Based Medicine might have mistakenly placed ads on The Society Against Grammar and Logical Syntax’s website.

          Not that I should talk, but I figure if I’m appalled, it must be torture for the grammar and syntax sensitive readers.

Comments are closed.