Tag Archives: Peer-reviewed

Burzynski: Peer-Reviewed Published Articles (most recent to 2015)

List of recently published peer-reviewed articles related to
Antineoplastons and Burzynski’s “personalized cancer therapy”



A Phase II Study of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 in Adult Patients with Primary Brain Tumors—Final Report (Protocol BT-09)

Link: http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=61444


A Phase II Study of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 in patients with recurrent Anaplastic Astrocytoma—Final Report (Protocol BT-15)

Link: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/cco/article/view/47383


A Phase II Study of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 in patients with Brainstem Gliomas.
The Report on Non-Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma (Protocol BT-11)

Link: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=55563#.VTRM6hPF_t1


A Phase II Study of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 in Adult Patients
With Newly-Diagnosed Anaplastic Astrocytoma – Final Report (Protocol BT-08)

Link: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/cco/article/view/42461




The response and survival of children with recurrent diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma based on
phase II study of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 in patients with brainstem glioma

Pubmed link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24718705



A Phase II Study of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 in Children with High-Grade Glioma.
Final Report (Protocol BT-06), and Review of Recent Trials

Abstract: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=46242#.VMF91i7F-Qw



A Phase II Study of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 in Adult Patients with Recurrent Glioblastoma Multiforme:
Final Report (Protocol BT-21)

Abstract: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=49564#.VMF-dS7F-Qw



A Phase II Study of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 in Children with Recurrent, Refractory or Progressive Primary Brain Tumors—
Final Report (Protocol BT-22)

Abstract: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=49568#.VMF-wy7F-Qw



Recurrent Glioblastoma Multiforme— A Strategy for Long-Term Survival

Abstract: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=49566#.VMF_SS7F-Qw



The Effect of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 and Metabolites of Sodium Phenylbutyrate
on Gene Expression in Glioblastoma Multiforme

Abstract: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=49471#.VMF_jy7F-Qw






A Case of Sustained Objective Response of Recurrent/Progressive Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma
with Phenylbutyrate and Targeted Agents

Abstract: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=52985#.VMF9NS7F-Qw




Preliminary Findings on the Use of Targeted Therapy in Combination with Sodium Phenylbutyrate
in Colorectal Cancer after Failure of Second-Line Therapy—A Potential Strategy for Improved Survival

Abstract: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=51577#.VMF_6S7F-Qw



Preliminary Findings on the Use of Targeted Therapy in Combination with Sodium Phenylbutyrate in
Advanced Malignant Mesothelioma: A Strategy for Improved Survival

Abstract: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=50986#.VMGALS7F-Qw



Preliminary Findings on the Use of Targeted Therapy in Combination with Sodium Phenylbutyrate in
Recurrent Advanced Pancreatic Cancer—A Potential Strategy for Improved Survival

Abstract: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=50936#.VMGAci7F-Qw



Preliminary Findings on the Use of Targeted Therapy with Pazopanib and Other Agents in Combination
with Sodium Phenylbutyrate in the Treatment of Glioblastoma Multiforme

Abstract: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=52600#.VMGAtC7F-Qw





CLICK: (2016): Instantly watch the new BURZYNSKI: CANCER CURE COVER-UP (2016) 1 hour, 50 min

Your rental or purchase of this new release helps to support and maintain our ability to keep this story alive and in the public’s eye, only $5.00.

Subscribe to the Burzynski Film Series mailing list

* indicates required

Jessica Ressel-Doeden – Inoperable Diffuse Intrinsic Brainstem Glioma (DIPG) – Cured with Medical Records

Jessica Ressel-Doeden was diagnosed with a diffuse, intrinsic, childhood brainstem glioma (DIPG) in March of 1996 at age eleven.

According to the available data there has not been a single case of a verified cure (5-year survival) with patients diagnosed with diffuse (inoperable) childhood brainstem glioma treated with radiation and/or chemotherapy in any FDA-supervised experimental clinical trial in the history of medicine. Dr. Burzynski’s Antineoplastons hold the only cures to date—with a cure rate in some studies as high as 27.5% [PDF of original report, table page 172] + [Chemo/Rad – PubMed 2005] [ANP – PubMed 2003] [ANP – PubMed 2006] [ANP – Cancer Therapy 2007]

[The Lancet 2006 explains grim outlook – “survival remains static”].

** April 2014 Peer-reviewed clinical trial report for DIPG using Antineoplastons **

Following her initial diagnosis, the Ressel’s were informed that the only method approved by the FDA to “treat” her condition would be radiation. The radiologist informed the family that radiation would be shot “through the ears, burning her healthy cells from the outside in—causing permanent deafness, all of the hair around her ears would be gone—never grow back, her ears would become deformed and burnt, her pituitary gland would be destroyed—the gland that allows a human to grow and develop, and if she survived the treatment she would become a vegetable and incapable of taking care of herself.”

Considering that radiation treatment has never been shown to cure a single patient with her condition, combined with the devastating side effects such a treatment would inflict on an eleven-year old child—her parents declined the radiation treatment offered by her oncologists and decided to have Jessica treated by Dr. Burzynski instead.

Medical Records

1. Diagnosis: Jessica underwent an MRI on April 10, 1996 at the St. Louis Children’s Hospital which revealed a tumor in her brainstem. Her diagnosis was also confirmed on May 7, 1996 upon initial consultation with Dr. Burzynski. She had multiple MRIs after she was admitted into the Burzynski Clinic. There is also multiple third-party confirmations of diagnosis by physicians from the Springfield Clinic and the Missouri Eye Institute demonstrated by letters written to the Ressel’s insurance company.

2. Recovery: On May 8, 1996, Jessica began antineoplaston treatment. Her tumor disappeared and reappeared multiple times throughout the course of 14 months after the start date of treatment. On June 27, 1997, her tumor disappeared permanently. She has had multiple MRIs of the brain since that time which have all been negative for tumor recurrence—with the last MRI being May 20, 2005. Read Jessica’s treatment summary here. Read Jessica’s tumor measurements here. After her full recovery, the Mid-Atlantic Open MRI of Springfield, MO confirmed her tumor-free MRIs from 11/97 to 5/98 [PDF all medical records and sources for this paragraph].

3. FDA-supervised clinical trial data comparing chemotherapy and radiation treatment to antineoplaston treatment in patients with diffuse, intrinsic, childhood brainstem glioma. It has been clearly demonstrated that of 107 patients treated with chemotherapy and radiation with this type of tumor: 0.9% of these patients were cancer-free at the end of treatment, with no patient surviving 5 years after diagnosis. Of the patients treated with antineoplastons with this type of tumor: 27.5% of them were cancer-free at the end of treatment, with 27.5% of the patients living at least 5 years after diagnosis. Therefore, Jessica Ressel’s recovery after being treated with antineoplastons is not a mere anecdotal case (See sources from start of this post above).

Most would assume that such results would be front page news across the world, or would be grounds for Dr. Burzynski to receive the Nobel Prize in medicine. Sadly, these peer-reviewed results have been universally ignored by mainstream medicine.

Raising the Money to Receive Her Antineoplaston Treatment

Unfortunately, most insurance companies will not cover antineoplaston treatment. The Ressel family had to come up with $6000 per month to pay for her treatment all by themselves. The high cost of antineoplaston treatment is directly due to the United States government’s refusal to allow any tax-payer money to be granted to fund the FDA-supervised clinical trials that Jessica participated in—while simultaneously granting PhRMA tens of millions of dollars to fund similar FDA-supervised clinical trials with inferior outcomes.

Below is a TV news footage montage from 1996-1997 covering Jessica’s story, fundraisers and more:

The Ronald McDonald House Charities®

During our interview with the Ressel family, Robin said that she “had called the Ronald McDonald House to see if we’d be able to stay there, because we were going to have to stay in Houston for a while, I was talking to a volunteer on the phone—when I mentioned we had an eleven-year old we were taking to see Dr. Burzynski and we needed a place to stay for a couple of weeks—you could hear whispering going on in the background, the volunteer was being prompted what to say, and The Ronald McDonald House refused to allow us to stay there because we weren’t an M.D. Anderson patient. I felt bad for the volunteer, you could tell she was being told what to say.” Dan followed up by saying “There are a lot of programs out there, but I will never give a dime to the Ronald McDonald House. We were in a desperate situation, and they refused us because we were a patient of Dr. Burzynski”.

Joining the Fight in Preserving Burzynski’s Freedom

Jessica Ressel was being treated by Dr. Burzynski in 1996, several months after the FDA’s 5th grand jury against Dr. Burzynski resulted in an indictment. “The government was more frustrating than the cancer itself.” The Ressel family traveled to Washington DC to meet hundreds of other Burzynski patients to speak out against the FDA’s attempt to remove him from society.

Family Speaks Out

Jessica Ressel’s medical records are published by written authorization by Jessica Ressel-Doeden.

Lt. Col. James Treadwell – Glioblastoma Multiforme Grade IV – Cured with Medical Records – brain cancer

James Treadwell was diagnosed with a Glioblastoma Multiforme Grade IV brain tumor in 2004. He has been cancer-free since 2006. An MRI performed in 2010 has confirmed that he is still cancer-free today.

#1 Diagnosis: Pathologists performed a biopsy at the Naval Medical Center in San Diego, CA establishing his diagnosis [PDF]. A second opinion was sought at the UCLA Medical Center which also verified his diagnosis [PDF]. See the Baseline MRI: 9/22/2004 [view image].

#2 Prior Treatment: Prior to Antineoplaston treatment, James Treadwell underwent two surgeries (craniotomies), a Gliadel wafter placement, six weeks of standard radiation treatment (from June 22 to August 4, 2004), three cycles of Temodar® chemotherapy (from June 23 to August 20, 2004). None of these treatments cured Mr. Treadwell of his cancer. In fact, after the second surgery no residual cancer was found, and after the course of radiation and chemotherapy his cancer had returned and doubled in size by September 14, 2004.

#3 Recovery: After two surgeries, a Gliadel wafer, and 6 weeks of both chemotherapy and radiation failed to rid Mr. Treadwell of his brain cancer—on September 24, 2004 James Treadwell was admitted for administration of Antineoplaston treatment. He did not receive any other treatment other than Antineoplaston treatment after September 24, 2004. On November 30, 2006 his cancer was gone [PDF of tumor measurements]. [PDF of ANP treatment summary]; [11/30/2006 MRI image]; [11/2008 MRI image].

#4 Treating Glioblastoma Multiforme Grade IV without Antineoplastons.
In 2010, some German scientists have admitted total defeat: “For patients with relapsed GBM [Glioblastoma Multiforme] there is currently no standard systemic therapy.”

The New England Journal of Medicine Published a study from 2005 stated: “Glioblastoma, the most common primary brain tumor in adults, is usually rapidly fatal. The current standard of care for newly diagnosed glioblastoma is surgical resection to the extent feasible, followed by adjuvant radiotherapy. In this trial we compared radiotherapy alone with radiotherapy plus temozolomide [Temodar®], given concomitantly with and after radiotherapy, in terms of efficacy and safety.” This is the same treatment Mr. Treadwell received prior to being treated with Antineoplastons.

It should be noted that Senator Ted Kennedy died of Glioblastoma Grade IV brain cancer. Countless Glioblastoma survivors cured by Antineoplastons as well as many other people cured of other types of cancer due to Antineoplastons flooded Kennedy’s office to share with him the existence of Antineoplastons. Mr. Kennedy’s wife wrote the Burzynski’s Clinic requesting all communication from Antineoplaston treated cancer survivors stop contacting his office entirely. A year later, Kennedy was dead. Lt. Col. James Treadwell’s medical records are published by written authorization by Lt. Col. James Treadwell.

Sophia Gettino – Pinealoblastoma – Cured with Medical Records

Sophia Gettino Pinealoblastoma Cured

Sophia Gettino was diagnosed with a pinealoblastoma brain tumor on December 18, 1996—when she was 10 months old. [1]

Sophia was born in January 1996. In December of 1996, Sophia’s parents noticed that she was having trouble with her motor skills, displaying a decrease in appetite, and had noticeable swelling of the head.

After several visits to the pediatrician’s office, they decided to have an MRI conducted to see if anything was wrong with her brain. The MRI revealed a mass measuring nearly 3 cm in her brain. On December 18, 1996 a biopsy was performed by the pathology department at the Syracuse Health Center in Syracuse, New York—which diagnosed Sophia with a deadly pinealoblastoma brain tumor.

On December 20, 1996 surgeons at the Syracuse Health Center removed nearly all of her tumor, but were unable to remove it all without injuring Sophia any further.

In their evaluation report oncologists at Syracuse stated “Because of her age, short onset of symptoms and pathologic findings, her prognosis unfortunately is very poor. The option of chemotherapy was presented to the family.”

The chemotherapy offered to Sophia was a combination of thiotepa, etoposide, and carboplatine.

Thiotepa Chemotherapy was approved by the FDA on March 9, 1959. This drug was approved for breast, ovary, and bladder cancer primarily. To date, thiotepa’s “safety and effectiveness in pediatric patients have not been established.” The expected side effects of this chemotherapy in non-pediatric patients are: low blood cell count, vomiting, infertility, hair loss, blurred vision, and being a carcinogen causes more cancer.

Etoposide Chemotherapy was approved by the FDA on November 11, 1983. This drug is used to treat people with testicular cancer or small cell lung cancer. In pediatric patients, etoposide’s “safety and efficacy have not been established”. The side effects in non-pediatric patients receiving this therapy include leukemia, nerve damage, inability to fight infections, and vomiting. There is limited evidence to verify whether or not this drug used alone causes more cancer, but there is sufficient evidence that when used with other chemotherapy that is does cause cancer.

Carboplatine Chemotherapy was approved in the late 1980’s and is primarily used to treat ovarian, lung, and head and neck cancers. “the most troubling effects of carboplatin tends to be damage to the bone marrow…” Other side effects include damage to the nervous system, mouth sores, loss of appetite, stomach pain, diarrhea, vomiting, and changes in vision.

After understanding that these chemotherapeutic drugs would not likely save Sophia, combined with the side effects this chemotherapy regimen could cause to their daughter, Sophia’s parents declined all chemotherapy treatment offered by their oncologists and decided to explore other methods of treatment. Upon this search for another option they found the Burzynski Clinic.

On February 27, 1997 Sophia was admitted for antineoplaston therapy in a FDA-supervised Phase II clinical trial. She discontinued antineoplaston therapy on March 7, 2003 due to a complete response. She is alive, healthy, and remains cancer-free today. (A residual, benign tumor is still left in her brain, but all signs of malignancy have disappeared and have not returned to date).

Medical Records

1. December 18, 1996 pathology report from Syracuse Health Center.
2. December 25, 1996 Syracuse Health oncology evaluation report verifying diagnosis, with suggested experimental chemotherapy regimen.
Baseline MRI of the brain on February 26, 1997 showing a massive tumor in her brain.

4. Sophia’s Phase II FDA-clinical trial treatment summary
5. Tumor Measurements from start of treatment to declaration of “complete response”.
6. A third party confirmation of complete response from J.C. Pleasure, MD of Oncoimaging, P.A. in Herdon, VA
7. February 3, 2003 MRI scan showing the residual benign remnants of the once malignant tumor.

Comparing the FDA clinical trial data for this type of tumor

In a group of Phase II clinical trials using only Antineoplastons, with 13 children ranging from one to eleven years old with PNET tumors: Six of those patients (46%) survived more than 5 years after treatment. Five of the six patients had not undergone any previous chemotherapy or radiation prior to being treated with Antineoplastons. Click here to read this study’s abstract.

In contrast, a chemotherapy drug produced by GlaxoSmithKline called Topotecan (also a gene-targeted drug), is undergoing Phase II trials for this type of tumor in children as well. Twenty-six children were treated, two objective responses were noted (7.6%), and these two patients managed to live beyond five years. However, this does not indicate the damage, if any, this chemotherapeutic drug caused these patients. Click here to read this study.

Therefore, in virtually identical Phase II gene-targeted clinical trials treating PNET in children: topotecan chemotherapy resulted in a 7.6% 5-year survival; while Antineoplastons resulted a 46% 5-year survival. It’s important to note that while Antineoplastons are free of harmful side effects, topotecan’s side effects generally include: hair loss, vomiting, and diarrhea—if you are lucky. If you are one that has a more severe reaction to this drug, the side effects can include: difficulty breathing; swelling of the face, lips and tongue; severe cough; painful urination, unexplained bruising, and stomach cramps. Click here more on this drug.

Sophia Gettino’s medical records are published by written authorization by her family.

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 –