Tag Archives: Dr. Burzynski

Teresa Kennett: Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma – cured – with medical records

Teresa Congress

To fully utilize this article, click on the blue text to link to the source being discussed…

Teresa Kennett was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma in July, 1984 at St. Mary’s Medical Center in San Francisco. Teresa chose not to undergo any treatments offered to her my her doctors and decided to undergo Antineoplaston therapy in November 1986. She was pronounced in complete remission in May, 1989. She has been healthy and cancer free ever since.

Medical Records
#1 Record of Third-Party Diagnosis:

July 17, 1984 initial St. Mary’s Medical Center assessment ruling out NHL /

July 18, 1984 St. Mary’s Medical Center’s Pathology, Bone Marrow Pathology, and Operative Report confirming a diagnosis of NHL /

July 23, 1984 St. Mary’s Discharge Summary /

May 31, 1985 San Francisco General Hospital confirmation of diagnosis /

June 1, 1985 San Francisco General Hospital Radiology Report /

January 14, 1986 San Francisco General Hospital Radiology Report /

#2 Dr. Burzynski’s records:

November 11, 1986 History and Physical

April 11, 1995 Treatment Summary

Newport Beach Film Festival 2010

In Teresa’s words:

Twenty-seven years ago, I was diagnosed with stage 4 Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma; the doctors told my family that I would be dead within two years. Instead I lived. The reason I’m alive, strong and healthy today is because I was treated with Antineoplastons by Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski.

Dr. Burzynski had the CURE for my Cancer. This is the story of my diagnosis and recovery.

It was 1984; I was 36 years old. I worked for a non-profit organization training neighborhood people in conflict resolution in San Francisco. I lived with my husband David, a television news cameraman, in a working class neighborhood in the southern part of the City. After ten years of marriage we’d just had our first child, a beautiful little girl we named Zia Marie. Never a conventional person, I was very involved in the arts, alternative healing, organic food and natural childbirth. It was logical for me to consider having our baby away from a hospital, if possible. After careful thought and planning we decided to have our daughter at home with a midwife. My pregnancy was fairly uneventful, and our 6-hour home birth was beautiful and uncomplicated. We were adjusting to life as new parents and enjoying our baby when a post partum check up by our midwife revealed a lump in my abdomen. She thought it might be a hematoma from the birth process, but when it didn’t go away, she sent me to my general practitioner. He sent me for a CT scan. That was the day my life as I’d known it changed. Forever.

The CT scanner at St. Mary’s Hospital is in the basement. I’d gone to the hospital alone, leaving Zia at home with my husband. I was breastfeeding and had expressed enough milk for a couple hours. I’d been told the scan wouldn’t take longer than an hour.

Then I was done with the scan and told to wait in the bank of chairs outside the scan chamber. The minutes ticked by and then an hour. Then another hour. And another. All the other patients had gone home and the waiting room was empty. My breasts were filled and leaking. I kept asking the nurses in the area if they knew anything, but they didn’t. They told me it was important to wait. Finally almost four hours after I’d had my scan, a doctor appeared. He said abruptly,“You have cancer, and it’s all over your body.” I remember that I was shaking so hard my teeth were chattering and I burst out crying. “I have a new baby, I can NOT die!” I said. The doctor walked away. “I’ll go find your GP”, he called over his shoulder. Alone in the empty waiting room I stood sobbing in complete terror and grief. I felt like I was dying on the spot.

The following weeks were a blur. Major abdominal surgery and a bone marrow biopsy revealed the cancer was small cleaved cell Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, stage 4. The cancer was so widespread, the surgeon decided not to try to remove my affected spleen or any more than two lymph nodes. The oncologist recommended that I stop breastfeeding immediately; he would be giving me an intravenous cocktail of three chemotherapeutic drugs, Cisplatin, Cytoxin, and 5-FU.. My breast milk would be poisonous to my daughter. The drugs would cause hair loss, extreme nausea and vomiting, skin conditions, liver poisoning, etc. They would not cure the cancer; there was no cure for this form of cancer. When my family and I questioned the advisability of taking a toxic treatment that would yield such poor results, my surgeon and oncologist both became very upset and angry. There would be chemo, no questions asked; it would be unconscionable not to take the treatment, and that was that.

As soon as I was able to get around, we headed to Stanford Medical Center for a second opinion. Here they offered the same mix of drugs, but there also was an additional protocol that had recently been added to recommended protocols for this form of Lymphoma. Because the small cleaved cell type could sometimes grow more slowly than other Lymphomas, and because the chemical protocol was so devastating to the body, a patient could choose to have a blue dye injected into the lymph system through the feet and then x-rayed monthly in a “watch and wait” mode until the cancer threatened to shut down a major organ. This was the best offer I’d heard so far, and I immediately opted for “watch and wait”.

But of course, I wasn’t going to be waiting around to eventually be poisoned, even at Stanford! With support from family and friends, I started researching every non-toxic alternative approach to cancer I could find. Over the following 18 months I explored every viable idea I came across and could afford:
Macrobiotics, juicing, acupuncture, colonics, homeopathy, peptide shots in Mexico, visualization, meditation, natural lipid therapy, high dose vitamin therapy (ironically, at one point I lost my hair due to vitamin A toxicity), laetrile, and many other things I’ve forgotten by now. Every month I dragged myself reluctantly back to Stanford Cancer Clinic to be x-rayed. The waiting room filled with shell-shocked, skeletal, depressed cancer patients was terrifying. The x-rays showed the cancer was holding steady. It was not going away. But it was not growing either.

In pursuit of a diet that would support my lipid therapy, my mother and I traveled to see a highly recommended nutritional physician in Oregon, Dr. Lynn Anderson. Dr. Anderson regularly put her career in jeopardy treating cancer patients with nutritional therapy. She was also searching for more humane and effective approaches to cancer than chemo and radiation for her patients. When she learned that I’d managed to avoid chemotherapy for almost two years, she urged us to get in touch with a doctor in Texas who was successfully treating cancer with a non-toxic medicine he’d synthesized from the human body. Dr. Anderson thought I would be in an ideal position to benefit from his approach, since my immune system had not been destroyed yet by chemotherapy, and this doctor’s treatment worked with the immune system. I was reluctant to call him; I’d been to so many doctors and practitioners in so many places, but Dr. Anderson insisted. A week later I was on a plane to Houston to meet Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski. My life was about to change again, this time in a most miraculous way!

The first thing I noticed upon entering the waiting room at the Burzynski Clinic, was the atmosphere. Instead of the usual funereal mood of other cancer clinic waiting rooms, the people here seemed relaxed. Children were running around. Animated conversations were taking place. Were these cancer patients? They looked too healthy–and happy. My meeting with Dr. Burzynski was also an optimistic event. Dr. B had read all my records, examined my blood and was ready to start me on the oral form of his medicine: Antineoplastons. He was confident that my body would respond positively to the treatment, that the extensive web of tumors throughout my lymph system could shrink. Every hopeful, I wanted to believe what he said. But I’d been down so many paths that petered out or that led to a dead end, and my body was so tired and so sick, it was hard to imagine a life of health restored. I went back to my little Houston motel room, took my first dose of Antineoplaston capsules and laid down on the bed and prayed. Let it be true, please!

I woke up early the next morning feeling strangely energetic. I got out of bed and found myself suddenly looking forward to my visit to the Burzynski Clinic. There was a buoyancy inside. I even felt hungry for breakfast–something I’d not felt for many months. Dr. Burzynski was not at all surprised to hear about my sudden spurt of energy; this was a common response to Antineoplaston therapy. Dr. Burzynski created Antineoplastons by synthesizing peptides our bodies make naturally. These peptides circulate through the system conveying a chemical message to any cancer cells they find: stop growing! When the cancer cells get this message, they stop reproducing, and naturally die off. The peptides are plentiful in the blood and urine of healthy individuals, but people with cancer and other degenerative diseases have greatly reduced numbers of these peptides, which work in conjunction with our immune systems. Because my treatment was replenishing my supply of peptides, my immune system was being supported. Increased energy was the first “side effect” I had with Antineoplaston treatment!

In the months that followed, I flew back and forth to Houston on a regular basis. Since Dr. Burzynski was not allowed to treat anyone outside the state of Texas, I took a Texas address and lied to the clinic, thereby making myself a federal criminal.

Houston friends of my family helped send me my medicine; sometimes I smuggled it onto the plane instead. I was willing to take the risk of being arrested; slowly my health was actually improving! From the beginning of treatment, my blood work showed notable improvement, although the extensive network of lymphatic tumors remained. I continued to feel more and more energetic and the intense depression and anxiety I’d lived with on a twenty-four hour basis began to lift. As treatment went on, we decided to increase my daily dose of Antineoplastons and switch to intravenous delivery. I had an IV port placed in my chest. Every night I filled an IV bag with liquid Antineoplastons and received an 8 hour drip while I slept. After four months I was experiencing a reduction of my huge, uncomfortable belly and I’d increased my weight from 90 pounds to 100. I’d had only one minor side effect, which was sleepiness after an infusion. But the best news was this: my MRI showed a 25% reduction in the size of my tumors! My family and I were beyond ecstatic.

Because the kind of cancer I had was a slow-growing type, the cancer cells were longer-lived and slow to respond to treatment. My cancer was also very extensive. And yet, little by little the cancer seemed to be naturally dying off as it responded to the messages from the Antineoplastons. Finally the day before my daughter’s fifth birthday the MRI showed the results we had all been praying for for so long: there was no sign of cancer any more in my body! I was well!

When I began treatment with Dr Burzynski, it had been near to impossible to find an oncologist in the Bay Area who would monitor my treatment. None of the doctors I’d seen at St. Mary’s or Stanford was willing, or even interested in my progress.

My husband’s work as a television news camera operator took him on a regular basis to the first AIDS clinic in the United States; sadly AIDS was now a daily part of the evening news, and David had become acquainted with the head of the clinic, Dr. Paul Volberding. Volberding had started off specializing in lymphomas, but had become more and more involved in AIDS research and treatment as the epidemic grew. Because there was no effective treatment for AIDS, practitioners were more open to experimental and non-conventional treatments than doctors who practiced traditional oncology. My husband begged Dr. Volberding to take my case, and Volberding generously agreed, despite his heavy responsibility and international status. During the many months of my treatment with Antineoplastons then, I made regular visits to the AIDS ward at San Francisco General Hospital where Dr. Volberding had his practice. Each time he examined me and looked at my latest scan, he calmly noted that my tumors seemed to be regressing. He was genuinely pleased and happy for us when we triumphantly arrived to share the final “all clear scan” with him. But he never expressed any curiosity about Dr. Burzynski’s treatment or how it could be that a woman who was slated for death was standing before him completely healed. When he later was interviewed by Thomas Elias for the book “The Burzynski Breakthrough”, he stated that my restored health had been due to a “spontaneous remission”.

Teresa Kennett’s medical records are published by written permission of Teresa Kennett.

Jodi Fenton – Anaplastic Astrocytoma Grade III cured – Medical Records

Jodi was diagnosed with an inoperable grade III anaplastic astrocytoma brain tumor on May 15, 2000.

Following her initial diagnosis, her neuroncologists in Los Angeles told her that the standard protocol for someone with her condition is to undergo Temodar®, which is a chemotherapy, followed by a course of radiation. Unfortunately, according to the clinical trials performed that allowed the FDA-approval of Temodar®, the average expected life span of someone with this type of brain cancer using Temodar® is around 13.6 months.

After weighing her options, she declined chemotherapy and radiation treatment and choose antineoplaston treatment instead. One month after starting antineoplaston treatment her cancer was gone. She has been free of cancer ever since.

Very often, when a story like this is shared with most medical professionals who are unfamiliar with antineoplaston treatment, they usually respond in three ways: #1: She was never diagnosed with cancer to begin with. #2 Any treatment she had before starting antineoplaston treatment is likely what actually cured her. #3: Even if it is true, it proves nothing as it’s merely a single anecdotal case.

Medical Records

Note: Jodi’s records are labeled as Jodi “Gold”, which is her maiden name. Jodi was married in 2005 with Dr. Burzynski in attendance. Jodi is now known as Jodi Fenton.

#1 Diagnosis & Recovery – Jodi’s MRI medical records establishing the presence of a mass in the brain. Jodi’s medial records establishing final diagnosis through biopsy. Jodi’s MRI medical records showing her recovery one month after starting treatment. Dr. Burzynski also had a board-certified radiologist from a third-party review and confirm Jodi’s records [PDF of full records and sources for this paragraph].

#2 Prior Treatment – Jodi Fenton has not received any chemotherapy or radiation treatment to date.

#3 FDA-supervised clinical trial data comparing chemotherapy and radiation treatment to antineoplaston treatment in patients with anaplastic astrocytoma. According to FDA-supervised clinical trial data treating anaplastic astrocytoma patients, only 9% of those undergoing chemotherapy and radiation treatment were cancer-free at the end of treatment [PDF page 5]. Clinical trial data treating patients with this condition using Temodar® chemotherapy alone found only 8% of patients were cancer-free after treatment [PDF]. However, these results do not guarantee anyone living a normal healthy life after being subjected to these treatments. The chemotherapy treatment Temodar® offered to Jodi can result in serious debilitating side effects [PDF] or even death [PDF]. Additionally, the concomitant radiation therapy that was offered to Jodi carries the risk of brain necrosis, a condition in which radiation therapy permanently destroys the tissues of the brain, often ending in death one or two years after treatment.

Likewise, according to FDA-supervised clinical trial data treating this type of cancer using only antineoplastons, 25% were cancer-free at the end of treatment, with most of them going on to live normal healthy lives—free of harmful side effects. Therefore, Jodi Fenton’s recovery from this type of cancer after being treated with antineoplastons is not a mere anecdotal case [PDF].

Bristol-Myers Squibb’s Tour Of Hope

One of Jodi’s biggest passions is road bicycling. After Jodi was cured and returned to riding regularly, in 2003 she applied to the Bristol-Myers Squibb Tour of Hope bicycle tour hosted by Lance Armstrong – and was one of 26 people chosen to participate in a cross country bicycle tour to promote awareness for participating in clinical trials and cancer research. When being interviewed for a spot on the team she was never asked where she was treated.

Considering how remarkable Jodi’s story is, Bristol-Myers Squibb placed Jodi infull page ads in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and USA Today to promote the ride. She was interviewed along side Lance Armstrong on CNN.

Jodi was soon contacted by a nationwide publication to tell her story (who’s name will not be revealed). During the initial phone interview with this publication, Jodi told the reporter she was treated with antineoplastons at the Burzynski Clinic. The reporter never called her back. Two weeks later Jodi called the reporter back to follow up, the reporter simply told her “we aren’t going to run the story.” Jodi has inferred that the reason they decided not to run her story is because she was treated at the Burzynski Clinic.

Jodi was indeed cured in a clinical trial involving new cancer research. However, she was cured using antineoplastons—not a treatment that Bristol-Myers Squibb distributes or any treatment that is produced and distributed by any of the major pharmaceutical companies.

Watch an extra clip of our interview with Jodi talking about the Bristol Myers Squibb Tour Of Hope experience.

Jodi Fenton’s medical records are published by written authorization by Jodi Fenton.

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.

SOURCE: You can read the original JAMA article, with Dr. Burzynski’s “letter to the editor” rebuttal as well as the independent rebuttal in a complete PDF by clicking here.


SOURCE: Read a 1992 letter from the Antineoplaston Study Group at Kurume University in Japan documenting their communication with Saul Green.

SOURCE: Read a 1992 letter from the Vice President and Director of Research for Mutual Benefit Life Insurance, Robert Maver, to the Editor of JAMA—who addresses JAMA’s severe flaws in the article.

SOURCE: Read a 1992 letter from Edwin Bransome Jr. MD of the Medical College in Georgia to the Editor of JAMA, addressing the misleading nature of this article.

SOURCE: Read a 1992 letter from Paul Scharff, MD to the Editor of JAMA, addressing the misleading nature of this article.

SOURCE, Mr. Green’s Resume: Saul Green, PhD is not even a medical doctor – click here for his resume and proof of employment at Zol Consultants.

January 2015 Interview with Dr. Burzynski

Watch the first interview in over 2 years of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski. He gives a brief update on what has been happening since January 2013.

Understanding the Opposition

This is a new website, we migrated this post from the previous website).

WATCH this TEDx lecture on “Astoturfing” to get an introduction.



JUNE 23, 2014 UPDATE: USA’s Food & Drug Administration (FDA) acknowledges safety and efficacy of Antineoplastons in Phase II trials, encourages The Burzynski Research Institute, Inc. to begin Phase III clinical trials and prepare for market (Yahoo Finance).

1. The Orthodox Scriptures

To fully utilize this article, click on the blue text to link to the source being discussed.

Dr. Burzynski’s approach to cancer treatment is not unlike much of the newly surfacing gene-targeted treatments available today.

For example, a recent special on PBS’s NOVA explored how a scientist named Dr. Jean-Pierre Issa from M.D. Anderson Cancer Center has been utilizing “genetic switches” to cure a form of cancer known as leukemia. This scientist has been widely hailed as a pioneering genius, and his ideas are now widely implemented when approaching the treatment of leukemia. Dr. Burzynski’s discovery is nothing less than identical to Dr. Issa’s—as he uses “genetic switches” to address the cancers he treats in his clinic. Yet, due to the orthodox beliefs instilled within most of the population of the medical profession, they are taught that even though Burzynski’s scientific method of treating cancer is virtually identical to Dr. Issa’s—that somehow, without sound scientific reason to defend it, Burzynski’s method is simply not valid. Thus resulting in a “blind belief” based on “orthodox scripture”.

Certainly the idea of genetic switches that was introduced over 30 years ago is becoming contagious. Dr. Issa from M.D. Anderson is one of the leaders in epigenetics. What is important in his interview is that he seems to agree with my theory of gene silencing in aging and also the theory of the master clock of life, which is based on the telomere mechanism” – Stanislaw Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D., 2009

The 2009 Nobel Prize in Medicine was granted to scientists “for the discovery of how chromosomes are protected by telomeres and the enzyme telomerase.” A discovery that “has inspired experimental cancer therapies”. However, this discovery is one that Dr. Burzynski has been utilizing long before 2009 in relationship to his methods for treating cancer through genetic switches.

In 2010, scientists at Harvard have been studying telomerase as well.

Here is a press release from 2005 explaining Burzynski’s presentation on this exact research in Chicago.

“It looks like we are rapidly approaching times when the people will say that what I am doing is ‘obvious’.” – Stanislaw Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D., 2009

2. How Have Current Medical Orthodox Beliefs Succeeded In Dismissing Burzynski’s Discovery?

To fully utilize this article, click on the blue text to link to the source being discussed.

In order to fully understand this, perhaps it’s important to review another example of sound scientific observations that conflicted with the established scientific order of it’s time. In the 1840’s a Hungarian physician named Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis discovered that if a doctor simply washed his hands after performing an autopsy, and before aiding in the birth of a child—it would prevent the spread of disease and infection. In essence, Dr. Semmelweis simply discovered that it was a good idea for any physician to wash their hands before performing any medical procedure. Today this concept is widely accepted as a scientific truth. However, in the 1840’s, Dr. Semmelweis’ observations were widely viewed as preposterous. Dr. Semmelweis was ostracized from the medical profession for his “hand washing” observation and later died in an insane asylum.

“To show you the problems we face in the current-day paradigm of cancer treatment—there was no money in hand washing vs. non hand washing. This was just the belief system so ingrained in physicians that it was heretical to challenge what they thought was right.” – Julian Whitaker, M.D. 2009

There are three basic phases that any orthodox belief system generally passes through when evolving new ideas such as Semmelweis’. The first is rejection. The second is denial. The third is acceptance.

While it may be difficult for most of us to imagine that such an irrational event could occur today, it would be highly arrogant of us to assume that it could not. Particularly when there’s evidence to demonstrate that it is. Just as in Semmelweis’ time, the medical orthodoxy is currently at a crossroad in relationship to Burzynski’s discovery. It seems the established order has successfully moved beyond total rejection, and into the second phase—denial.

Today, Burzynski’s treatment has successfully completed FDA-supervised Phase II clinical trials using his medical discovery (antineoplastons) to treat cancer. One of the most notable results being that antineoplastons hold the first and only cures for inoperable, intrinsic childhood brainstem glioma found in any experimental clinical trial in the history of medicine (See Jessica Ressel’s story). Yet, regardless of this reality, the medical establishment has generally denied this finding of scientific fact. Instead of welcoming this stunning accomplishment, an accomplishment that has never occurred before in the history of medicine, the medical establishment has dogmatically preserved it’s mechanism of denial:

“Another incident happened last Friday when the FDA, first time, refused to permit the treatment with antineoplastons for a 20-year-old man diagnosed with inoperable brainstem glioma because “he did not have prior standard treatment.” As you know, there is no standard treatment for this type of brain tumor and over 90% of patients are dead within two years and everybody is dead in 5 years. We supplied the FDA with extensive data on the efficacy of antineoplastons in this type of tumor including 94 evaluable patients. We have seen the best survival rates among adult patients. For them, two years survival is 87% and five years survival is 50%. Yet the FDA is easily sentencing a young man to die a slow death because they are depriving him of the chance to be treated with antineoplastons.” – Stanislaw Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D. – email communication, Nov. 11, 2009.

The above example is clear display of denial of scientific fact—in an effort to preserve the current medical orthodoxy—an orthodox belief system that has not yet reached the phase of acceptance in regards to antineoplastons. While it may be frustrating to hear such a story, we must come to realize that historically—this has always been the process. A process that will inevitably end with the acceptance of antineoplastons and other forms of gene-targeted therapy to treat the disease of cancer. Thus finally placing the outdated nature of previous treatment modalities such as chemotherapy and radiation—into the drawer next to the bloodletting kit and the flat earth.

It is the author’s opinion that such a transition can be an exciting one. When else in our generation or in recent history have we been offered the opportunity to witness one of the largest paradigm-shifts in medial history? Think about it—when the population of the planet had to finally agree that “yes, the earth is indeed round”—imagine how profound that must have been for the population to come to realize that something that they were taught their entire lives—was in fact wrong. Or for that matter, how about two thousand years of “bloodletting”?

3. Functioning Within The Phase Of Denial

To fully utilize this article, click on the blue text to link to the source being discussed.

Most medical professionals within the practice of oncology know that the majority of the current orthodox cancer treatments simply do not work in respect to actually saving lives. Of course, undoubtably, if a person is diagnosed with cancer early enough, very often the original tumor can be successfully removed through surgery. There is no question that such a technique has proven successful time and again. However, it’s important to remember that this technique has been around for over 100 years—and is still based on the concept of “purging” the body of cancer, as opposed to “reprogramming” the cancer to behave like a normal cell and die—which is precisely what a gene-targeted cancer therapy such as antineoplastons do.

What if someone is diagnosed with a form of cancer that cannot be removed through surgery? Unfortunately, there is very little that can be done to safely save this person’s life within the current medical orthodoxy. The treatments generally offered to such patients are chemotherapy and/or radiation.

Chemotherapy – Chemotherapy was first discovered in the 1940’s while testing the effects of the chemical warfare material “mustard gas”. It was found that humans exposed to mustard gas had profound lymphoid and myeloid suppression. This observation was reason to believe that such a chemotherapeutic agent could be successful in treating lymphoma—and indeed it was. Shortly after World War II, more research was done that found that other chemicals used in a similar fashion were effective against leukemia. Once chemotherapy regimens were explored further, it soon became the norm to give chemotherapeutic agents to any and everyone suffering from an inoperable cancer without any evidence to justify it. Why? Mainly because there simply wasn’t any other options available at the time. (This is actually not entirely true, as Coley’s Mixed Bacterial Vaccine proved to be remarkably successful in the treatment of inoperable human cancers, but it was quickly ostracized due to it’s inexpensive nature and non-patentability—a subject better suited for another posting [PDF all]).

To date, there is simply no scientific evidence to support a significant chance of saving a patient’s life using the administration of chemotherapy for treating inoperable cancers—with the exception of lymphomas, leukemia, and testicular cancers. In 2004, The Royal College of Radiologists conducted an extensive study reviewing any and all published peer-reviewed clinical trials across the United States involving the use of chemotherapy treatment from January 1990 to January 2004. The combined total percentage of 5-year survival rates in cancer patients treated with chemotherapy—covering 22 different types of malignancies—was a mere 2.1%. Testicular cancer had a 37.7% survival rate; Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma had a 10.5% survival rate; and Hodgkin’s disease had a 40.3% survival rate after being treated with chemotherapy. Yet, even combined with these high percentages, the chances of surviving cancer using the treatment of chemotherapy for any other type of cancer was shown to be so dismal, that the overall survival rate was still a mere 2.1%. [Please download the PDF and read the actual study for yourself].

On Wednesday February 24, 2010 a rather revealing article was published involving one of the University of Michigan’s top cancer experts explaining “The reason breast cancer and other malignancies often return aggressively after treatment is that when tumor cells die under assault from chemotherapy and radiation, they give off substances that can reactivate a special set of master cells known as cancer stem cells .. Dr. Wicha’s lab has found that inflammatory molecules secreted by dying tumor cells can hook up with the stem cells and cause them in effect to come out of hibernation.” Read the full article here.

MSNBC has recently reported that some nurses who administer chemotherapy to patients may be developing cancer themselves. “Chemo is poison, by design”.

Radiation – The author has yet to find a large cumulative study (as was performed by the Royal College Of Radiologists in regards to chemotherapy) to support the overall survival rates of radiation therapy. However, conventional wisdom should tell us—there is a reason your dentist ducks into another room while performing x-rays on your teeth: radiation causes cancer.

So why then—if we know for certain—based on sound peer-reviewed scientific evidence, that the standard orthodox cancer treatments that are widely utilized today to treat patients with inoperable cancer simply do not have the data to justify using them—why do they continue to be implemented today?

The first reason we have covered, and that is the indoctrinated belief systems instilled within medical orthodox scripture used to educate the medical professional on “how to” and “how not to” treat inoperable cancer. The medical professional is often viewed by most societies as having an almost mystical “all-knowing” power to diagnose and treat the illnesses of our time. However, the scientific method demonstrates that this is simply a myth. If it weren’t a myth, then all of the attention spent on modern-day cancer treatments would be spent in the direction of antineoplastons and other forms of gene-targeted therapy, and not on the archaic failures of chemotherapy and radiation. Likewise, if a medical professional—upon graduating from the teachings of medical orthodox scripture—indeed possesses an “all knowing” power, then why are so many diseases and ailments constantly misdiagnosed?

The fact of the matter is, unless a licensed physician was provided with at least a semester of “antineoplaston training”, or has been directly involved in the clinical testing of antineoplastons – it is therefore impossible for that medical professional to hold the knowledge related to the subject to make a responsible, informed statement on antineoplastons.

It’s important not to blame or belittle such medical professionals—they are simply a product of their conditioning. As time goes on, they will inevitably grow to accept the undeniable realities of antineoplaston treatment—a reality that has been revealed through the very system they have been taught to respect—the scientific method. Their current struggle through the phase of denial is a required part of their transition into acceptance.

The second reason these treatments remain in place, is directly due to …

4. Money

To fully utilize this article, click on the blue text to link to the source being discussed.

Regardless of where one lives on the planet, whether that system is defined as “socialist”, “communist”, or “capitalist”—there is one defining thread that connects them all: money. Money is utilized in all social systems, and given the advent of western globalization, all systems function within some form of capitalism—regardless of the arbitrary label assigned to that system.

In the United States and most of the western world, capitalism is the dominating social design for trade. It is not the intent of the author to promote or criticize any of these systems, but rather it is the intent of the author to simply point out some of its realities. It is often viewed that a capitalist system is one that promotes “freedom”—the right to choose what one wants to purchase or sell within such a system. However, upon closer examination, one may find that in fact we are not all granted the same “freedoms” to do this. For instance, if a homeless person has no money to purchase food, we are in essence telling that person that they “do not have the freedom to have food”.

This very same mechanism dictates what product has the freedom to—and does not have the freedom to, enter the marketplace.

The pharmaceutical industry is one of the most profitable industries on the planet. As an industry this powerful begins to grow, and it’s profits increase—so does it’s stock price within the market. Likewise, such an industry requires a large work force to sustain the production, distribution, and advertising of it’s products. It should seem obvious that it would be in the best interest of such a company to preserve its profitable momentum.

In the case of the pharmaceutical industry—they are highly dependent on the Food & Drug Administration to approve the new products they distribute, thus sustaining this profitable momentum. Due to this reality, PhRMA has devised a way to both speed up the FDA-approval process, and in some cases avoid the FDA-approval process altogether. This was done by establishing “user fees” imposed upon the FDA through Congress by PhRMA, thus purchasing the FDA’s drug evaluation department from both the government and the public. This new legislation has been highly beneficial in making sure PhRMA’s new patented cancer drugs reach the market much faster than in the past—an effort that has been highly successful in sustaining the pharmaceutical industry’s need for a growing profitable momentum. The total fee revenue paid to the FDA by PhRMA in 2010 is $569,207,000. For most cancer drugs submitted to the FDA, PhRMA now pays them $1.4 million per application [PDF all]. It’s important to understand that the FDA did not request this new fee structure to occur—instead PhRMA went to Congress and imposed these new fees onto the FDA to gain control over it’s drug evaluation department.

Due to the medical industry’s current stranglehold over the FDA-approval process, it has resulted in some backlash from the scientists working within the FDA. Sadly, the calls from these FDA-employed whistleblowers have been largely ignored. [Read a letter written by 9 FDA scientists that was addressed to the co-chairman of President Obama’s transition team in January, 2009 explaining this growing problem – full PDF here]. Read various mainstream articles covering this letter here and here.

It appears that this shift of FDA power handed to the pharmaceutical industry has also prevented competing cancer therapies like antineoplastons from being allowed to fairly go through the FDA-approval process—as giving antineoplastons a fair review process would directly compete with the current $90 billion annual consumer billing (in America alone) PhRMA now has a monopolistic share in.

Think about it—if you were diagnosed with an inoperable cancer, and your choices were chemotherapy, radiation, or antineoplastons—which one of those treatments would you choose?

Now to the heart of the matter—the exclusive patent rights to antineoplastons. Currently, Dr. Burzynski and the Burzynski Research Institute, Inc. hold the exclusive patent and distribution rights to antineoplastons. This means that once antineoplastons are approved, it will be the first time in history that a paradigm-shifting medical breakthrough will reach the market without the involvement of a major, publicly-traded pharmaceutical company. Oh, did I mention that The Burzynski Research Institute, Inc. is also a publicly traded company? BZYR

Place yourself for a moment in the shoes of a CEO of a major pharmaceutical company, and you held he power within the FDA to stop such a product from reaching the market—an effort that would help to preserve the market share that you currently maintain—would you simply stand idle and allow such a thing to occur? Knowing that if you did allow it, it could result in a massive downturn in your company’s profit, thus reducing the value of your stock, and inevitably resulting in massive layoffs within your employee pool?

5. The Food & Drug Administration

To fully utilize this article, click on the blue text to link to the source being discussed.

Not only has the Food & Drug Administration prevented the fair review process of antineoplastons to proceed, but they themselves have made numerous failed attempts at removing Dr Burzynski completely from society—no different than how the established order in Galileo’s time removed him from society.

In fact, in 1983, during one of the earliest court victories against the FDA that Dr. Burzynski endured—the FDA actually sent a threatening letter to the judge in this case warning her in advance: “If this court declines to grant the [injunction] sought by the government, thus permitting continued manufacture and distribution of antineoplastons… the government would then be obliged to pursue other less efficient remedies, such as actions for seizure (a.k.a. raiding Burynski’s clinic and home) and condemnation of the drugs (a.k.a. manufacturing a propaganda campaign against the medicines) or criminal prosecution of individuals (a.k.a. throwing Dr. Burzynski in prison)…” [Read the threat for yourself – PDF]

Over the course of the following 15 years, the FDA repeatedly succeeded in carrying out the first two threats, and failed miserably carrying out the third one. The propaganda campaign manufactured by the FDA during this period is largely responsible for producing and influencing the tainted scripture found within today’s orthodox medical texts regarding antineoplastons.

The only reason Burzysnki is permitted to conduct FDA-supervised clinical trials of antineoplastons today—is because the FDA’s efforts to remove Burzynski from society backfired. In the 1990’s the FDA convened at least five federal grand juries in an effort to place Burzynski in prison for the rest of his life—all of these grand juries ended in no finding of fault on his behalf. Unlike in Galileo’s time, we have a semi-functioning court system established to protect the citizen—if you can afford it.

Due to Congressional and public pressure resulting from the barrage of grand juries, the FDA was forced into allowing Phase II clinical trials of antineoplastons—while Burzynski was facing an FDA indictment. To makes matters worse, the judge in the trial refused to allow the jury to visit Burzynski’s facility where antineoplastons are produced—and outright forbid the mention of whether or not his treatment was effective during the trial. This absurdity did not get past the media [PDF].

Additionally, Dr. Julian Whitaker M.D. spearheaded a fundraising campaign and helped raise over $700,000 for Burzynski’s legal defense—funneling money from both Burzynski’s patients and others in support of Burzynski’s right to freedom. In the end, it was the American public that guaranteed Burzynski’s freedom, not the court system.

While the FDA currently approves new cancer drugs produced by PhRMA within 3 to 4 months [PDF]—Dr. Burzynski, his patients, and other supporting scientists have made every conceivable effort to get the FDA and the government to cooperate in the research, review and approval of antineoplastons since 1977.

Now that antineoplastons are entering into Phase III clinical trials (the final stage before reaching FDA-approval)—PhRMA’s Food & Drug Administration has made what appears to be one last-ditch effort to both stall and sabotage this final phase of antineoplaston testing. The FDA has officially mandated that patients participating in these Phase III trials must simultaneously undergo radiation treatment while receiving antineoplaston treatment [PDF]. Since Dr. Burzynski began treating cancer patients in 1977, never has radiation been a required addition to his treatment—as that’s the entire point of antineoplaston therapy: to reprogram the genetic mechanism that allows cancer to flourish, relieving the patient of having to resort to the the archaic method of “purging” the body of cancer cells through cutting, burning or poisoning them.

The FDA’s only excuse for forcing this to occur is : “it would be unethical not to give radiation treatment to these patients.” Most of the patients to be placed in these trials suffer from inoperable brain cancer. It has been firmly established, based on sound scientific evidence, that radiation treatment administered to the head can not only promote the growth of cancer, but it can result in “brain necrosis”, often killing the patient within one or two years after treatment. (See Jodi Fenton and Jessica Ressel’s story for more on this subject). Therefore, even if antineoplastons successfully cure a large percentage of the brain cancer patients during these new trials, these patients may possibly die within one or two years—even if they are cancer free. If this occurs it would immediately disqualify what is considered a verified cure, as the scientific standards set by today’s established order state that a verified cure means living at least 5 years after diagnosis.

Considering that radiation treatment has never been required to cure cancer patients who undergo antineoplaston therapy, and there is no sound peer-reviewed data to suggest that radiation treatment will offer assistance to antineoplaston therapy—one must conclude, that this new mandate is nothing less than the established medical orthodoxy grasping onto what is left of it’s current established belief system. Not to mention how favorable it will fare for the orthodox cancer industry if this new FDA-mandate results in the failure of these final trials.

We clearly haven’t reached the phase of acceptance yet—even if we have reached the final phase of clinical testing.

There is a reason why patients generally do not survive inoperable brain cancer: chemotherapy can’t get into the brain due to the blood brain barrier, and radiation simply destroys the brain itself. Please read a PDF of court testimony by Dr. Nicholas Patronas (a board-certified radiologist since 1973, Professor of Radiology at Georgetown University and founder of the Neuoradiology section of the National Cancer Institute) to see what a seasoned National Cancer Institute brain tumor expert has to say about radiation therapy vs. antineoplaston therapy.

6. The Astroturf / Misinformation Campaign

WATCH this TEDx lecture on “Astoturfing” to get an introduction.

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.

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. Upon closer scrutiny, you will find that they do not practice the act of being “Skeptical” at all—instead they hide behind the label while furthering a predetermined agenda. Beware of any group that labels itself after a preexisting attribute of the human condition.

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 this author 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 the “anti-Burzynski” Astroturf campaign.
* These people are covered in the new 2013 release of Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II.

Much more to come. Please check back often, or sign up for email updates.


“The transition from a paradigm in crisis to a new one from which a new tradition of normal science can emerge is far from a cumulative process, one achieved by an articulation or extension of the old paradigm. Rather it is a reconstruction of the field from new fundamentals, a reconstruction that changes some of the field’s most elementary theoretical generalizations as well as many of its paradigm methods and applications. During the transition period there will be a large but never complete overlap between the problems that can be solved by the old and by the new paradigm. But there will also be a decisive difference in the modes of solution. When the transition is complete, the profession will have changed its view of the field, its methods, and its goals.” Thomas Kuhn, author of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

“Condemnation without investigation is
the height of ignorance.” – Albert Einstein

“What frightens the establishment about Antineoplastons,
has nothing to do with some guy in Texas who invented them—based on some peptide-based extract.

It’s about their loss of control and authority
over a highly profitable share of the market.”
– Eric Merola, 2013 –