Frequently Asked Questions
Last Updated on Tuesday, 07 January 2014 15:24
To fully utilize this article, click on the blue text to link to the source being discussed.
1. I asked my doctor about Dr. Burzynski and antineoplastons, and he said there is no proof that it works.
If you are interested in the treatment methods of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski and you inquire with a physician about these treatments, there are three questions you might want to ask:
1. Have you ever reviewed the medical records of any present or past patients of Dr. Burzynski?
2. Have you visited his clinic and/or made an attempt to understand the science behind his treatment?
3. Have you read any of the peer-reviewed medical literature published concerning the science behind this treatment—and all of the statistical data published regarding the results from Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials?
If a doctor, scientist, or medical professional has answered "no" to any of the above questions, their "opinion" on antineoplastons or Dr. Burzynski may be based on the lack of proper education to responsibly arrive that their opinion. Additionally, science isn't a matter of opinion. The scientific findings published in the peer-reviewed medical literature isn't opinion, it's scientific fact, based on the testing and re-testing of these medicines in strictly designed clinical trial conditions under FDA-authorization and supervision—then scrutinized by other peers of the oncology and scientific community for further verification.
2. Everyone I speak to says "no one has ever been able to reproduce Burzynksi's results", is this true?
No, it is not true. There are many other "independent investigators/scientists" around the world conducting "independent replication" of Antineoplaston studies—namely, independent researchers in Japan at Shandong University and Kurume University. [Shandong source 2007] [Kurume source 2005] [Kurume source 2003] [Kurume source 2002] [Kurume source 1998a] [Kurume source 1998b] [Kurume source 1996] [Kurume source 1995a] [Kurume source 1995b]. (More on Japan in the "Part II" documentary released in 2013—we visited the facilities where these clinical trials took place and met the scientists conducting them).
"After twenty-seven years of independently testing Antineoplastons—including randomized clinical trials, we found that Dr. Burzynski was right. It's obviously not anecdotal anymore."
- Hideaki Tsuda, MD - 2013, Kurume Medical University, Fukuoka Prefecture, Japan
* These Japanese randomized clinical trials using Antineoplastons are currently under peer-review for publication. *
3. Does Dr. Burzynski currently use animal or human urine to treat cancer?
Absolutely not. In 1967, after obtaining his medical degree and while completing his PhD in biochemistry, Dr. Burzynski discovered a strain of peptides in human blood and urine that had never before been recorded in biomedical research. As Dr. Julian Whitaker stated in the film, "discovering something in the urine [and blood] at that time, that had never been discovered before—is like finding a whole bunch of new islands ten miles off the coast of Miami, it came as a big surprise." Dr. Burzynski had no idea what this discovery meant at the time. However, he and his colleagues were extremely excited about this new discovery, and he continued to explore it. After testing the human blood of various different sexes, races, and ages of people—he found that these newly discovered peptides were either absent or revealed a very low count within the blood of those individuals with cancer. He eventually found that this peptide count was virtually identical in both human blood and human urine.
Dr. Burzynski simply hypothesized—if he could simply extract these peptides from healthy donors, and administer these peptides to people with cancer, perhaps it would be helpful in treating the disease. Upon this initial exploration, he discovered that extracting the amount of peptides from healthy human blood was very laborious as the amount of blood needed to obtain a necessary amount of peptides far exceeded the amount of blood reasonably available.
Upon this realization, he began extracting these peptides from human urine, since it was far easier to obtain large amounts of healthy human urine vs. healthy human blood. Dr. Burzynski began setting up collection containers at state parks, religious institutions, and even prisons.
Today, Dr. Burzynski synthesizes the chemicals to help your body naturally produce these peptides in his massive 46,000 square foot manufacturing facility in Stafford, Texas—he no longer uses urine as the source of these peptides. The use of human urine as the source for these peptides ceased in the early 1980s. Therefore, it has been nearly 30 years since he has used any urine whatsoever as the source of his treatment.
As for animal urine, it seems some of the members of the press who reviewed this documentary such as The Village Voice, Time Out New York, and the New York Post either did not pay any attention, didn't bother to watch the film at all, or they maliciously lied about the contents of the film. (The Village Voice and Time Out New York have since edited their reviews online to exclude the "animal urine" inaccuracy, but the New York Post still stands behind this glaring inaccuracy).
The chemicals that are used to enable your body to produce these peptides that make up the active ingredients for Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski's patented, Antineoplastons are:
Antineoplaston AS2-1: Phenylacetlglutamine, Phenylacetate
Antineoplaston A10: Phenylacetylisoglutamine
Anyone today who states that Dr. Burzynski currently uses urine of any sort in the treatment of human cancers is either (a) lacking the necessary resources or motivation to investigate this story thoroughly (b) is very confused by the difference between the initial discovery in 1967 vs. how his operation has been running since the 1980's up until today. Or, sadly... (c) is intentionally lying.
If you are currently a client of Aetna insurance, or are simply curious, it's important to note that if you visit their website and search for "Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski" or "Antineoplastons" you will find that they state: "Aetna considers antineoplaston therapy (auto-urine therapy)...". "Auto-urine therapy" is the practice of urinating into a cup, and drinking it. This is one of the finest examples of either careless research, or malicious slander by the medical establishment. If urinating into a cup and drinking it was a method for treating any disease, why would one need a doctor to perform this treatment? Or better yet, why would someone need an insurance company to cover such a treatment? Or even better, why would someone want to be insured by a company that is incapable of accurately documenting the simplest of scientific data within it's literature?
4. What was the outcome of the duplicate patents?
Given the confusing and convoluted nature of the Department of Health and Human Services filing "copy cat" patents of Dr. Burzynski's AS2-1—which commenced 17 days after they visited his clinic on October 4, 1991 and verified for themselves that "anti-tumor activity was documented", all the while using one of Burzynski's own scientists to file the patents—below is the official statement regarding this matter after consulting with Dr. Burzynski and his patent attorneys.
"It seems the entire criminal indictment was geared toward placing Dr. Burzynski in prison so he could not defend himself against the criminal theft of part of his discovery (AS2-1). While they did manage to patent PA (phenylacetate) which Dr Burzynski never patented, it also included PAG (phenylacetylglutamine) which was patented previously by Burzynski—however, his AS2-1 patents include both chemicals. Since Dr. Burzynski is a free man now, and even though the 'copy cat' NIH patents were approved, Burzynski can't really successfully sue the NIH or Elan until they actually 'act' on those patents by manufacturing and selling the substance. Right now, the only thing Burzynski can do is to ask the for re-examination of the NIH patents. Frankly, Dr. Burzynski has spent enough time fighting, he just wants to put this behind him and continue developing his medicine and treating cancer patients."
Dr. Burzynski can't exactly walk in the front door asking the Department of Health and Human Services for the approval of his discovery for public use, while simultaneously knocking on their back door with a criminal indictment.
5. The opposition keeps saying that there has been no "peer-reviewed" data on his therapy, is this true?
No, it is not true. Aside from the numerous "peer-reviewed" medical journal articles referenced in the film, Dr. Burzynski and others have published dozens of studies of Antineoplastons in the peer-reviewed medical literature. Feel free to visit "pubmed.gov" here and search for "Burzynski Antineoplaston". The next question you might want to ask this person is "have you made an attempt to look for any peer-reviewed data on Dr. Burzynski?" More peer-reviewed publications can be found here as well [click]. One of the most stunning admissions of ignoring the peer-reviewed scientific literature occurred in a Dateline NBC 2/20/11 broadcast [watch the episode and read the analysis here].
In October, 2013 another peer-reviewed article on Antineoplastons related to DIPG was published in The Journal of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology [ click here ]
6. Have other countries other than the United States allowed Antineoplaston research to commence?
Here is a sample list of Japan's peer-reviewed scientific data on their independent Phase I and Phase II clinical trials of Antineoplastons:
7. I keep reading that no other scientist has been able to replicate Burzynski's work.
Not true. The most notable example being the above mentioned independent Japanese scientists that have completed 27 years of independently conducted clinical trials, including a randomized study with 65 patients for colon cancer metastasized to the liver. These independent studies will be submitted for international medical journal publication in 2013.
8. Some of the mainstream reviews (for PART 1) have complained that you didn't include members of the FDA or oncologists or doctors to speak either in support or opposition of Dr. Burzynski's treatment. (This question pertains only to Burzynski: Part 1 only—as Burzynski: Part 2 has an extensive cast of outside oncologists, surgeons, and other doctors).
Actually, if you watch the film you will find many doctors who have come out in support of Burzynski, including the founder of the neuroradiology section of the National Cancer institute, who testified in court on Burzynski's behalf [read the court testimony]. The FDA doesn't conduct personal on-camera interviews with anyone, much less the press or a film maker—this was clearly demonstrated in the film. I had also asked numerous oncologists and general physicians who were previously treating the patients in this film before they began treatment with Burzynski to participate in the film — ALL OF THEM turned it down. I even had oncologists exit the theater in Los Angeles and New York City after the film ended commending me on the film - and when I asked them if they would go on camera, none would agree. If you are a board-certified oncologist reading this now, and would like to go on camera, "for" or "against" Dr. Burzynski, please email me here.
9. Does the National Cancer Institute acknowledge the clinical efficacy of Antineoplastons today?
Yes, click here and view "Table 2".
Also go HERE to see a longer National Cancer Institute posting including some results from brainstem glioma Phase 2 trials of Antineoplastons:
"A phase II study also conducted by the developer and his associates at his clinic reported on 12 patients with recurrent and diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma. Of the ten patients who were evaluable, two achieved complete tumor response, three had partial tumor response, three had stable disease, and two had progressive disease. Patients ranged in age from 4 to 29 years. Treatment with escalating intravenous bolus injections of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 continued for 6 months. The average dose of A10 was 11.3 g/kg daily, and the average dose of AS2-1 was 0.4 g/kg daily."
10. Why is "Wikipedia" not listing any of this information?
(See question #12). The Wikipedia editors refuse to allow anything that show these medicines in a positive light to be allowed to be included in the "Burzynski Clinic" Wiki post (they have also managed to delete the "Antineoplastons" Wikipedia posting as well as the "Stanislaw Burzynski" Wikipedia posting). Feel free to try to add something that is truthful to that post, with a verifiable source, and watch your addition disappear within an hour. The Wikipedia page is a victim of an aggressive "Astroturf" campaign created by special interest groups trying to preserve their market share. Question #12 pertains to this in greater detail.
According to Wikipedia's own definition of "Wiki", it claims that the term "Wiki" is defined as a web application which allows people to add, modify, and delete content in collaboration with others. However, it appears this definition is a negotiable one in the case of "Burzynski" and "Antineoplastons". The Wikipedia page on this subject is not one that anyone can "add", "modify" or "delete"—which immediately disqualifies the false claim of the "collaboration" aspect of its definition of its own so-called "public service".
Feel free to email Wikipedia at: email@example.com to demand removal of the "Burzynski Clinic" webpage, since it has been highjacked 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. ANyone reading this should understand that Wikipedia is a mouth peice for the establishment, and can't be trusted when investigating contraversial issues like this, especially when the truth will destroy a multi-billion dollar industry.
11. I read negative things about Burzynski on Quackwatch, are they true?
No. Quackwatch's most recent "source" on Burzynski is from 1992. They list only six sources, three of them being "personal communications" by the late Saul Green, who was been busted being hired by Aetna to write an untrue hit piece on Burzynski that was published in JAMA. The current owner of Quackwatch is a known liar and has been taken to court numerous times for lying and writing untrue propaganda. Stephen Barrett's credibility holds about as much weight as the late Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf. Today, Quackwatch has been entirely outdated, and a new group who identify themselves as "The Skeptics" have assumed this new role (see #12).
12. What is the story with all of the anti-Burzynski "bloggers"?
As with anything new in the realm of science, you will always have detractors who will distort relevant scientific information, and project strategic cherry-picking of anecdotal data or taking data out of context. In the worst case scenarios, some bloggers intentionally publish fabricated information to their readers in an attempt to curb new patients from going to the Burzynski Clinic. These individuals are also responsible for "gate keeping" the Wikipedia Page on The Burzynski Clinic. Some call them paid "Status Quo Bigots".
The proper definition for the "Skeptic" activities, is called "Astroturfing". [click here for the definition]. An example of a past famous Astroturf campaign, is when health advocates began winning legislation to raise taxes and increase regulation of smoking in the USA—Phillip Morris, Burson-Marrsteller, and other tobacco interests created the "National Smokers Alliance" (NSA) in 1993. The NSA and other tobacco interests initiated an aggressive public relations campaign from 1994-1999 in an effort to exaggerate the appearance of grassroots support for smoker's rights.
The anti-Burzynski/Antineoplastons groups who call themselves "The Skeptics" work the same way. They are paid by third party interest groups, that appear to be unrelated to the industry itself, in an effort to destroy or at least stall the progress of Antineoplastons.
*If you read any of these "Anti-Burzynski" blogs you will notice their rhetoric is based on hate and fear, not facts. Frankly anyone who believes the unbridled nonsense written in those blogs are their target audience. The very same "editors" who gate-keep the Wikipedia page, then write their own blogs as "sources" to the very lies placed within the Wikipedia page. It's internet propaganda at it's best.
These bloggers meet the required criteria to be defined as a hate group. Practicing hate is more powerful than reviewing facts—because hate is illogical and emotional, and therefore, facts become irrelevant when attempting to rationalize with those who are overcome by hate. There is little hope of changing the minds of these individuals, and I wouldn't recommend wasting your time with them.
These same bloggers teamed up with Liz Szabo of USA TODAY (in Nov. 2013) and worked together to create one of the most perversely slanted and biased article on Burzynski to date.
- The stark reality:
The reality is, if Antineoplastons were placed on the market for any type of cancer—anyone would be able to gain access to it under the FDA's "Off label" clause. This would be permanently and detrimentally damaging to the cancer industry, as most any cancer patient who has experienced a failed surgery, or has an inoperable cancer would inevitably choose Antineoplastons over conventional toxic therapy, simply for quality of life issues. Also, since the patents on Antineoplastons have been around for a long time, they would only hold a 7-year exclusive patent upon reaching market before becoming a generic drug (like most antibiotics). Even if PhRMA were to purchase Antineoplastons for distribution, it would destroy their company along with all other competing companies, upon the medicines reaching "generic status".
The industry also profits greatly from all the anti-inflammatory medications, anti-nausea medications, anti-depressants, and more that are given as a standard to many cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy and radiation. The issue of Antineoplastons is merely a market issue, not a scientific one. Creating an aggressive Astroturf campaign is one of the final stages of defense when an industry is trying to preserve a monopolistic advantage over the market.
Overall, you need to be able to think for yourself. Question everything, including me and this film. Feel free to verify all sources used for this film for yourself via the Sourced Transcript [link]. You will notice the Astroturf campaign related to the "anti-Burzynski bloggers" refuse to do that or adhere to reputable sources. Their paid position is to prey on desperate cancer patients and families of cancer patients by misleading their readers about Burzynski and his invention. This is a natural course of history when scientific innovation like this occurs, and is something that is to be expected. Never underestimate the irrationality of the human brain when it is confronted with something it doesn't understand. These Astroturf bloggers have an agenda, and are not open to any rational discourse whatsoever.
Our society is built on propaganda wars, and wars of information and disinformation. The fact that most people will basically believe anything they are told without bothering to find out if what they are told is true or not—makes them for easy prey, especially when they are dying of cancer. The writers of the "anti-Burzynski" bloggers know this—and take full advantage of this. That is the entire goal of an Astroturf campaign.
In September, 2013 - Popular Science has stated they will be no longer allowing comments due to a small "fraction minority [which] weilds enough power to skew a reader's perception of a story." (i.e. Astroturf trolls, and Defenders of everything "Status Quo").
13. I am told that Burzynski charges hundreds of thousands of dollars for his Antineoplaston treatment (Note: Antineoplaston treatment has been effectively halted by the FDA as of January 2013).
Not true. The Burzynski Clinic gives away the medicine itself for free. The medicine costs the Burzynski Clinic $12,000 per month per patient to give it away for free. The Burzynski Clinic does, however, charge for the services that surround the therapy. The initial upfront cost of Antineoplaston treatment is around $20,000 for the first month, and $7,500 per month after the first month. This leaves the Burzynski Clinic & Research Institute with a $41,500 annual loss per patient treated—annually.
Most insurance companies do not cover these costs to the patient, although some have done so if the patient is diligent enough with their insurance company.
Also, the illusion that The Burzynski Clinic "profits" from this therapy is shattered by simply reading The Burzynski Research Institute's Annual 10K Filings for its publicly traded "BZYR" stock: "The Company [Burzynski Reseach Inc] had net losses of approximately $5,031,000 and $4,831,000 for the fiscal years ended February 29, 2011 and 2010, respectively."
** UPDATE - 2013, now that the FDA has officially halted anyone's ability to receive Antineoplastons in the USA until further notice (there was no reason other than their last ditch effort to make sure they never reach the free market), any patient that wishes to receive therapy at the Burzynski Clinic would enter the "personalized gene-targeted therapy", which can be extremely costly—since all the drugs administered are not Burzynski's drugs, and are manufactured by the pharmacueitcal industry. This new direction was covered to great extent in BURZYNSKI: PART II.
14. Is it true that Eric Merola's cousin, Domenica Prescott, was treated with Antineoplastons?
Yes, it is true. Shortly after the original documentary was released in 2010, Domenica was diagnosed with a Glioblastoma Multiforme brain tumor. Even though Eric Merola had been investigating Antineoplastons and Burzynski since 2007, and even though the film was available to be seen at the time her her diagnosis, the remainder of the family wasn't easily convinced that trying anything "alternative" would be a good idea for Domenica. After Domenica underwent 2 surgeries, a full round of chemotherapy (Temodar) and over 6 weeks of radiation—all of which failed her, Domenica began Antineoplaston therapy (ANP) in early 2011. After only 8 weeks of ANP therapy, her tumor decreased in size by nearly 30%. A few weeks later, Domenica died of a fatal seizure—where she suffered massive head injuries and excessive bleeding. By the time Domenica's father found her on the bathroom floor, it was too late to save her. Seizures are very common with inoperable brain tumors like a Glioblastoma or Anaplastic Astrocytoma—in fact, that is usually how people discover that have a brain tumor in the first place. While this is extraordinarily sad, since Domenica did not die of her cancer being uncontrolled—but instead one of the common side effects of this tumor type—all while she was one of the lucky ones where ANP was showing efficacy. Many paid "Astroturfing" bloggers (people who have never met Mr. Merola or Domenica Prescott—who ironically have chosen to identify themselves as "The Skeptics") ignore this reality—and wrongfully write and blog that Domenica died because Antineoplastons were unable to control her cancer.
15. Is it true that in January 2013 the FDA closed down the Burzynski Clinic?
No, it is not true. However, the FDA has temporarily halted anyone's ability to receive Antineoplastons in the United States until futher notice. The FDA's decision to do this had nothing to do with the safety or efficacy of the therapy. Instead, due to bureaucratic reasons outlined in "Part II" of this documentary series, it seems for now, Antineoplastons have gone as far as they can in the United States due to monetary market competition. The FDA serves as PhRMA's market-police, to avoid any paradigm-shifting and competing technologies to emerge—to protect both the status quo and the industry's overall bottom line.
Today, if anyone seeks therapy from the Burzynski Clinic, that patient will receive the clinic's "Personalized Gene-Targeted Cancer Regimine", that does not include the original invention of Antineoplastons. Perhaps upon the publication of the now finished indepently-run randomized double-blind clinical trials of Antineoplastons are published in the peer-revewed literature, there is a chance that the climate might change.
Welcome to the machine.
* Overall, taking one simple glance at history—using simple common sense—we will find that everything of scientific innovation has come from the fringe, and directly threatened the status quo at the start. From The Wright Brothers to Steve Jobs - they were all once considered "fringe mavericks" until their efforts merged into the mainstream and became a participant in the "status quo". The status quo is there to create its own legion of followers, while only those who dare to step out of it and take a risk with something that could change it—those are the only people in human history that have ever contributed to changing it. These innovators didn't listen to anyone except their own hearts and minds—while ignoring all the noise around them.
CANCER IS SERIOUS BUSINESS FILM SERIES
Do you have a question that arises every time you speak about Burzynski that you feel needs to be addressed on this page? Email contact [at] burzynskimovie [dot] com