1992 JAMA article and rebuttal
Click on the blue text within the article to view the sources used.
Today, the health care industry accounts for over 17% of our GDP. Which means, the more unhealthy our population, the more healthy our economy. One of the ways to maintain this profitable momentum is to manipulate the scientific literature.
Tampering with scientific truth within the peer-reviewed scientific literature is not a new problem in our society, in fact it has become the norm the past few decades. Whether it be ghostwriters writing fake favorable journal articles for medicines that the industry knows doesn't work or to their hide deadly side effects (remember Vioxx Dodgball?: read Dr. David Graham's testimony; CNN dodgeball article), the reason for doing this is to preserve the profitable gain within the industry. Even when these institutions are caught in the act and are forced to pay fines and settlements for these actions, this establishment always comes out ahead financially. Tampering with the truth within the scientific literature is a staple ingredient of economics 101. It's a proven method of increasing profits. Since cancer treatment takes in $90 billion annually, that's a big piece of a pie they need to preserve.
This type of underhanded strategy can also take the form of medical school professors themselves who are hired by the pharmaceutical industry to advertise their drugs to their medical students. One of countless examples was exposed by medical students at Harvard in 2009.
These tactics serve not only to exaggerate drug effectiveness or cover up dangers of drugs on the market, but can also be used to trick the medical professional or layman researching new competing treatments—such as Antineoplastons—into coming up with a conclusion that may not be the scientific truth.
Former Editor-In-Chief for the New England Journal of Medicine recently stated, "It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine. [link to article]
There are two major peer-reviewed articles in medical literature that are often cited by the unsuspecting medical professional as "proof" that there is no evidence that Antineoplaston treatment is an effective treatment against cancer.
Sadly, both of these articles betray the laws of the very scientific method the scientists writing them were taught to respect. The first is covered in the documentary—the National Cancer Institute-sponsored clinical trials published in 1999; and the second is an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association entitled "Antineoplastons: An Unproven Therapy". published in 1992.
At the time of the publication of JAMA's "Antineoplastons: An Unproven Therapy" Dr. Burzynski was facing a barrage of federal grand juries at the federal level, as well as numerous court appearances at the state level trying to remove his medical license. All of which ended in no finding of fault on Burzynski's behalf. In 1995, Burzynski was indicted in the 5th federal grand jury. Once of the players in this indictment was the insurance company Aetna, which has a long history of battling Burzynski. Even to this day, Aetna calls Burzynski's treatment "auto-urine therapy" or, urinating into a cup and drinking it.
In the usual tactic as many in the past and present have utilized, one of the scientists and paid consultants participating in litigation against Burzynski (Zol Consultants) named Saul Green, PhD wrote an elaborate but sloppy propaganda hit piece in an attempt to discredit Burzynski's discovery and treatment in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1992. Mr. Green, who is now deceased, is also the co-author of the infamous "Quackwatch" who's other co-founder Stephen Barrett has endured and lost lawsuits for slander and lying.
Another scientist employed by the United States government at this time who has hired to independently study the toxicity and efficacy of Antineoplastons took it upon himself to write his own rebuttal to what he found as a slew of "misrepresentations", "scare-tactics", "half-truths", "ignoring of clinical data", and the usual findings while investigating other dishonest attempts at manipulating scientific data.