Burzynski, the Movie is the story of a medical doctor and Ph.D biochemist named Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski who won the largest, and possibly the most convoluted and intriguing legal battle against the Food & Drug Administration in American history.
His victorious battles with the United States government were centered around Dr. Burzynski's gene-targeted cancer medicines he discovered in the 1970's called Antineoplastons, which have currently completed Phase II FDA-supervised clinical trials in 2009 and could begin the final phase of FDA testing in 2011–barring the ability to raise the required $150 million to fund the final phase of FDA clinical trials.
When Antineoplastons are approved, it will mark the first time in history a single scientist, not a pharmaceutical company, will hold the exclusive patent and distribution rights on a paradigm-shifting medical breakthrough.
Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Various cancer survivors are presented in the film who chose these medicines instead of surgery, chemotherapy or radiation - with full disclosure of medical records to support their diagnosis and recovery - as well as systematic (non-anecdotal) FDA-supervised clinical trial data comparing Antineoplastons to other available treatments—which is published within the peer-reviewed medical literature.
One form of cancer - diffuse, intrinsic, childhood brainstem glioma has never before been cured in any scientifically controlled clinical trial in the history of medicine. Antineoplastons hold the first cures in history - dozens of them. [ANP - PubMed 2003] [ANP - PubMed 2006] [Rad & other - PubMed 2008] [Chemo/Rad - PubMed 2005]
This documentary takes the audience through the treacherous, yet victorious, 14-year journey both Dr. Burzynski and his patients have had to endure in order to obtain FDA-approved clinical trials of Antineoplastons.
Dr. Burzynski resides and practices medicine in Houston, Texas. He was able to initially produce and administer his discovery without FDA-approval from 1977-1995 because the state of Texas at this time did not require that Texas physicians be required to adhere to Federal law in this situation. This law has since been changed.
As with anything that changes current-day paradigms, Burzynski's ability to successfully treat incurable cancer with such consistency has baffled the industry. Ironically, this fact had prompted numerous investigations by the Texas Medical Board, who relentlessly took Dr. Burzynski as high as the state supreme court in their failed attempt to halt his practices.
Likewise, the Food and Drug Administration engaged in four Federal Grand Juries spanning over a decade attempting to indict Dr. Burzynski, all of which ended in no finding of fault on his behalf. Finally, Dr. Burzynski was indicted in their 5th Grand Jury in 1995, resulting in two federal trials and two sets of jurors finding him not guilty of any wrongdoing. If convicted, Dr. Burzynski would have faced a maximum of 290 years in a federal prison and $18.5 million in fines.
However, what was revealed a few years after Dr. Burzynski won his freedom, helps to paint a more coherent picture regarding the true motivation of the United States government's relentless persecution of Stanislaw Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D.
Note: When Antineoplastons are approved for public use, it will allow a single scientist to hold an exclusive license to manufacture and sell these medicines on the open market—before they become generic—leaving PhRMA absent in profiting from the most effective gene-targeted cancer treatment the world has ever seen.
http://www.burzynskimovie.com/
26 Comments
siftbotThe thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by geo321.
siftbotMoving this video to marbles's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.
enoch*promote
siftbotPromoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued - promote requested by enoch.
hpqpUgh, this reminds me of Wakefield and the whole anti-vax shtick.
Well-intentioned quacks are still quacks, and making such a biased, *conspiracy-theory based "documentary" filled with anecdotal evidence, confirmation bias and the usual quack argument of "Big Pharma's out to get you and your cash" won't make things any better. Burzynski is a bit harder to debunk than others, because there may be a shred of truth in his claims, but up until now there has been no scientific evidence to support his claims. As for raking in the cash, Burzynski definitely has that down pat, demanding 30-60K for his treatments (example: at 963 patients in 1996, @30K/pers.=almost 29mio$... heck, almost enough to make a propagandish film to the glory of one's self!). It's easy to say you have great results when you're the only one giving the evidence.
The American and Japanese NCIs, as well as a pharmaceutical company (Sigma-Tau) showed interest in his claims, but were unable to duplicate his results, and not a single phase III randomised clinical study has been done with antineoplastons. The only "evidence" that supports Burzynski's claims come from his own publications, which have been criticised for not respecting basic research protocol (e.g. no control groups, omission of mentioning previous treatments, counting patients who did not even have malignant cancer, etc). Moreover, his claims do not seem to hold on a biochemical level. His credentials are shady as well.
I'm all for researching new and out-of-the-box treatments, but cannot stand when quacks fill their pockets out of the despair of sick and dying people.
links on the research:
The chemical breakdown of his claims:
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski1.html
Long in-depth report on his claims, history, etc.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/OTA/ota05.html
Unscientific methods:
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski2.html
relying on people's vulnerability to sell woo:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/05/harnessing_peoples_good_to_pay_for_woo.php
edit: nice publicity stunt, btw, shutting down the "documentary" shortly after posting it, then sending people to your website.
siftbotAdding video to channels (Conspiracy) - requested by hpqp.
enochwell now i feel like a dick for promoting.
but it DOES beg the question on funding for alternative methodologies and possible positive results.
a good example is that in 2004 (i forgot the companies name) raised the HIV treatments by up 350% citing costs for research and development and the fact that many countries have universal health care and are price locked.
the thing that makes this seemingly reasonable request so fucking heinous is that the R&D was government funded i.e:the american taxpayer actually paid for it.
ok..i shall end my feeble excuse for my promote by saying "good work hpqp".
the more you know...
/cue rainbow
ReefieThe FDA have never been successful in discrediting this guy, they've never even been able to claim that his antineoplastons are unsafe. Why not let him sell his medicine instead of fighting so hard to suppress his work? If the medicine is out there it won't be long before its effectiveness can be evaluated by the people that really matter - those of us who have, or have had some form of cancer. If it doesn't work then people won't want it. We allow homeopathy and that's got to be some really messed up pseudoscience, so I don't see why the FDA use such considerable resources to continually impose restrictions on the sale and export of this treatment. Chemo's gonna kill us, might as well try the alternatives.
siftbotMoving this video to marbles's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.
marbles>> ^hpqp:
Ugh, this reminds me of Wakefield and the whole anti-vax shtick. Well-intentioned quacks are still quacks,Ugh, we get it. Burzynski's a quack. The thousands of people he has cured are quacks. Wakefield's a quack. And the thousands of parents whose children had a adverse reaction to being vaccinated are quacks too. They're all self-deluded and well-intentioned quacks. Why? Because the authorities told you so. Your blatant arrogance is sickening.
>> ^hpqp:
and making such a biased, *conspiracy-theory based "documentary" filled with anecdotal evidence, confirmation bias and the usual quack argument of "Big Pharma's out to get you and your cash" won't make things any better. Sounds like you haven't watched the film. Maybe you should be more specific on what the "conspiracy-theory" the film is based on? And irony at it's best, your "research" is filled with nothing but "anecdotal evidence" and "confirmation bias"... trying to "debunk" with bunk. Nice job. And I need a citation for "Big Pharma's out to get you and your cash". I don't know where that came from. Of course I'm pretty sure by this point that you're just full of shit.
>> ^hpqp:
Burzynski is a bit harder to debunk than others, because there may be a shred of truth in his claims, but up until now there has been no scientific evidence to support his claims.
Gotta love the double-talk going on here.
>> ^hpqp:
As for raking in the cash, Burzynski definitely has that down pat, demanding 30-60K for his treatments (example: at 963 patients in 1996, @30K/pers.=almost 29mio$... heck, almost enough to make a propagandish film to the glory of one's self!).And you do it again. First you got a problem with the argument you allege the film is making "Big Pharma's out to get you and your cash", and then you turn around and make the same argument against Burzynski. Only the film didn't make the "quack argument" and you did. So who's the real quack here?
>> ^hpqp:
The American and Japanese NCIs, as well as a pharmaceutical company (Sigma-Tau) showed interest in his claims, but were unable to duplicate his results, and not a single phase III randomised clinical study has been done with antineoplastons. The only "evidence" that supports Burzynski's claims come from his own publications, which have been criticised for not respecting basic research protocol (e.g. no control groups, omission of mentioning previous treatments, counting patients who did not even have malignant cancer, etc). Moreover, his claims do not seem to hold on a biochemical level. His credentials are shady as well.Maybe you should watch the film instead of copy-pasting false information from fallacious articles of 10+ years ago.
>> ^hpqp:
I'm all for researching new and out-of-the-box treatments,Clearly. That's why you've had such an open mind here.
>> ^hpqp:
but cannot stand when quacks fill their pockets out of the despair of sick and dying people.
But you can stand when the US government criminally suppresses a discovery that could have helped save millions of lives over the last two decades. Bravo!
siftbotInvocations (conspiracy) cannot be called by marbles because marbles is not privileged - sorry.
marbles>> ^Reefie:
The FDA have never been successful in discrediting this guy, they've never even been able to claim that his antineoplastons are unsafe. Why not let him sell his medicine instead of fighting so hard to suppress his work? If the medicine is out there it won't be long before its effectiveness can be evaluated by the people that really matter - those of us who have, or have had some form of cancer. If it doesn't work then people won't want it. We allow homeopathy and that's got to be some really messed up pseudoscience, so I don't see why the FDA use such considerable resources to continually impose restrictions on the sale and export of this treatment. Chemo's gonna kill us, might as well try the alternatives.
Wow, a rational minded person. You deserve to be ridiculed.
marbles
marbles
hpqpKeep believing @marbles, you're starting to sound more and more like our resident evangelist shinybee.
marblesDec 5, 1996 Washington Times article covering Dr. Burzynski's trial: FDA ignores cancer drug's success ... Federal prosecutors concede that a cancer doctor they will put on trial here in January for using an innovative but unapproved drug has been "saving lives."
marbles>> ^hpqp:
Keep believing @marbles, you're starting to sound more and more like our resident evangelist shinybee.
Keep going after the low hanging fruit @hpqp. You and "shinybee" are one in the same. You're both oblivious to the irrationality of your belief systems.
marblesFrom the film:
NARRATOR (reading along with title card of Dr. Nicholas Patronas):
During this trial, one of the National Cancer Institute’s leading experts, Dr. Nicholas Patronas, a board-certified radiologist since 1973, professor of radiology at Georgetown University, and founder of the neuroradiology section of the National Cancer Institute [SOURCE: NIH Staff Pages]—recognized the absurdity of the Texas Medical Board’s case against Burzynski, put his own career on the line and flew himself to Texas to testify on Dr. Burzynski’s behalf. Dr. Patronas testified under oath his role at the National Cancer Institute.
NARRATOR (reading along with the official court transcript from the May 24, 1993 hearing): [SOURCE: Original complete court transcript of the entire testimony 1993]
Q (Jaffe): Basically, just in layman’s terms, you do all of the imaging work and interpretation for the National Cancer Institute’s testing of drugs?
A (Dr. Patronas): Exactly. That’s my job, to assess the effectiveness of the drugs that are given there.
Q (Jaffe): Did there come a time when you became aware of Dr. Burzynski?
A (Dr. Patronas): Yes, the National Cancer Institute asked me to join a group of other physicians and scientists, and come to Houston on a site visit to Dr. Burzynski’s Institute. I was called as an expert in assessing the images to evaluate the effectiveness of his treatment. The basic conclusion, was that in five of the patients with brain tumors, that were fairly large, the tumor resolved, disappeared.
Q (Jaffe): And that’s part of what you do at the hospital, is to evaluate treatments on brain cancer patients? A: Well, since I am the neuroradiologist I see all brain tumors. And I see a large volume of them.
Q (Jaffe): You testified that five of the patients had their tumors resolved, they all...
A (Dr. Patronas): Disappeared.
Q (Jaffe): Disappeared? Can you give us some kind of context of that? How often does that happen? Just by spontaneous remission?
A (Dr. Patronas): I’m not aware that spontaneous remission occurs. The available treatments rarely produce results like that. The only medication, the only treatment, which I think is a last resort, is radiation therapy. Conventional chemotherapy is—provides very little, nothing, basically. So when this happens it is very rare. In these cases, all of the patients had already failed radiation.
Q (Jaffe): What happens with these patients, who failed radiation, with brain cancer?
A (Dr. Patronas): That’s it. They die.
Q (Jaffe): You are saying, that if someone has already failed radiation, there’s not much else?
A (Dr. Patronas): Nothing to offer, exactly.
Q (Jaffe): And there is nothing that you can do at the National Cancer Institute?
A (Dr. Patronas): Nothing we can do, not at this present time.
Q (Jaffe): What about these five patients? How come they lived?
A (Dr. Patronas): Well, it’s amazing, the fact that they are not handicapped from the side effects of any treatment, and the side effects of most aggressive treatments are worse than the tumor itself, so these particular individuals not only survived, but they didn’t have major side effects. So I think it’s impressive and unbelievable.
Q (Jaffe): How many times have you seen this in your experience? How often does this happen?
A (Dr. Patronas): I don’t. I have not seen it at any time.
Q (Jaffe): Now, let me ask you your opinion or advice. Based on what you have seen, what would happen, let’s say, for some reason Dr Burzynski’s brain tumor patients can’t get his medicine anymore, and have to go off treatment. What’s going to happen to them?
MR. HELMCAMP (prosecutor): Objection, Your Honor, not relevant.
MR. JAFFE (defense): I think it is relevant. That’s really the issue we are advocating in this case.
JUDGE: Overruled.
A (Dr. Patronas): I think these patients will die.
http://www.burzynskimovie.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=101&Itemid=83
marbles(not from the film)
"The thing that bugs me is that the people think the FDA is protecting them. It isn't. What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks its doing are as different as night and day." - Herbert Ley Jr., M.D. (former Commissioner of the FDA)
"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus Pauling - 2-Time Nobel Prize Winner
hpqphomeopathy doesn't have bad side effects either, you know.
marbles>> ^hpqp:
homeopathy doesn't have bad side effects either, you know.
Really? Does it cure immaturity and gross ignorance? Maybe you should look into it if so.
hpqpYou're such a charmer.
Unfortunately, I cannot ingest water because I am a surveillance bot at the service of the NWO, Big Pharma, the Zionists and the Illuminati. Water would only destroy my circui-- ooooh, I see what you tried there!
>> ^marbles:
>> ^hpqp:
homeopathy doesn't have bad side effects either, you know.
Really? Does it cure immaturity and gross ignorance? Maybe you should look into it if so.
marbles>> ^hpqp:
You're such a charmer.
Unfortunately, I cannot ingest water because I am a surveillance bot at the service of the guv'mint, Big Pharma, the Zionists and the Illuminati. Water would only destroy my circui-- ooooh, I see what you tried there!
>> ^marbles:
>> ^hpqp:
homeopathy doesn't have bad side effects either, you know.
Really? Does it cure immaturity and gross ignorance? Maybe you should look into it if so.
A dis-info agent/apologist working for the government. That wouldn't surprise me.
FlowersInHisHair>> ^hpqp:
homeopathy doesn't have bad side effects either, you know.
Not exactly true.
http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html
hpqpHehe, of course. But the
water/sugarpillshomeopathic medicine itself shouldn't have any negative side effects...>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
>> ^hpqp:
homeopathy doesn't have bad side effects either, you know.
Not exactly true.
http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html
FlowersInHisHairWell, again, not exactly, since only last year supplies of homeopathic preparations (I can't call them "medicines", I just can't) originating in India were found to contain illegally high amounts of alcohol and heavy metals (http://tinyurl.com/3hcs9xo) and homeopathic pills marketed in the US to soothe teething babies were found to contain toxic quantities of belladonna (http://tinyurl.com/2cckjbd). Unlike real medicines, homeopathic preparations do not have to be vetted by the FDA before they go on sale. This is the reason why protest "mass overdoses" of homeopathic preparations like those seen in the 10:23 campaign in the UK last year (http://tinyurl.com/yj9v945) may not be all that wise - you just don't know what the homeoquacks have shoved into those bottles.
In any case, homeopaths don't give a shit about the possible side effects of their preparations - the manufacture of homeopathic preparations involves the dumping of huge amounts of homoepathically-activated waste solutions into the environment. If homeopathy really worked, this would be an industrial waste scandal that would put the oil wells of Nigeria in the shade. Fascinating article by Michael Edmonds on this subject at http://tinyurl.com/3msvpsk.
>> ^hpqp:
Hehe, of course. But the
water/sugarpillshomeopathic medicine itself shouldn't have any negative side effects...Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.