WHY DOES THE TEXAS MEDICAL BOARD WANT TO DESTROY DR. STANISLAV BURZYNSKI?
Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski is a Polish-born doctor who has over forty years' experience in treating cancer. He earned both his medical degree and a Ph.D. in biochemistry before he was 24—a rare achievement—and graduated "with distinction" at the top of his science class in Poland.
While doing research at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, he discovered "antineoplastons." These are components of biochemical defense against cancer that act as "molecular switches" to turn on tumor suppressor genes and turn off oncogenes. In 1977, he resigned from the college to establish Burzynski Research Laboratories in order to manufacture his discovery, which he patented.
In addition to his treatment for cancer, Burzynski has discovered new treatments for autoimmune diseases, viral infections, Parkinson's disease, neurofibromatosis, restenosis, AIDS, and has contributed to over 300 scientific publications.
Why, then, has this brilliant doctor incurred the wrath of the entire cancer establishment? Because his antineoplastons cure terminal cancers that his colleagues have said are incurable—and without the harmful side-effects of their drugs. This threatens the billion-dollar profits of Big Pharma.
Example No. 1: David Emerson was 34 when diagnosed with multiple myeloma in February of 1994. He underwent induction therapy of 5 rounds of VAD (Vincristine, Adriamycin, Dexamethasone), 2 rounds of Cytoxan and an autologus bone marrow transplant, all in 1995. In October of '96 he relapsed, underwent local palliative radiation to reduce the pain in his bones, relapsed again in September '97, and was told "nothing more can be done for you."
On learning that the Burzynski clinic was holding clinical trials for brain tumors, he went to Houston. Burzynski wanted him enrolled in the trial, and because he had an atypical form of multiple myeloma, the FDA made an exception for him on the grounds of "compassionate use."
David began intravenous antineoplaston therapy in November of '97. Radiological evaluation was required every 8 weeks—either CT scan or MRI—as were monthly visits with his local doctor and periodic visits to the clinic about every four months. By April of '99 he had achieved complete remission and remains cancer-free to this day.
His only suffering has been from the long-term, late-stage side effects of his conventional cancer treatment. These conditions include chemo-induced peripheral neuropathy, radiation-induced lumbosacral plexopathy, chemo-induced heart damage resulting in chronic atrial fibrillation, irritable bladder and "chemo-brain" (post-chemo cognitive impairment).
Example No. 2: Tori Moreno was born in 1998 with a tumor occupying her entire brainstem. Inoperable diffuse intrinsic pontine (brainstem) gliomas (DIPG) carry the worst prognosis in the oncology field. Told by their oncologist the tumor was inoperable and the child would not see her first birthday, the distraught parents asked if he knew of any other option they could try. He said he did not.
Turning to the Internet, they discovered Dr. Burzynski and applied to him as a last resort. When she was brought to the clinic Tori had been given only one month to live. Dr. Burzynski told the parents he had never treated a child that young so he could make no promises, but the baby was given his antineoplastons and the tumor began to shrink.
At the end of eight months Tori was in remission. Today she is a healthy young girl of seventeen, one of many children with terminal cancer whose lives "Dr. B." has saved. Incidentally, her parents later learned their oncologist knew about Burzynski when he denied knowing of another option.
Example No. 3:The case of Thomas Navarro, alas, has a sadder ending. At the age of four, Thomas was diagnosed with a medulloblastoma, a type of brain tumor that, if untreated, has few known survivors. Treatment, however, can cause numerous side-effects, including extreme mental disability. After surgery the oncologist proposed chemotherapy with radiation to the brain. Unwilling to subject their son to the risks of further invasive treatment, the Navarros looked for alternative answers on the Internet. (See the documentary "Cut, Poison, and Burn" – www.cutpoisonburn.com.) Finding Dr. Burzynski's name connected with successful brain tumor treatment, they took Thomas to Houston.
When they told their doctor they were seeking another opinion and would try Burzynski's treatment, the doctor—without their knowledge—notified Child Protective Services, which then tried to take Thomas away from the Navarros on charges of child cruelty and neglect. At the same time, the FDA told them that Thomas would have to go through chemo and radiation, fail both, and have measurable tumors before he would be allowed to have antineoplastons. As an Emergency Department nurse in the military, Donna Navarro had seen first-hand the toxic consequences of chemotherapy and radiation and refused to subject her son to such a demand.
For two and a half years the Navarros fought the FDA and CPS, a fight that left them physically exhausted and financially ruined. Jim Navarro tells of meeting with a member of Congress at the time who warned him to back off, saying "Son, you can't go there. You're going to cost a lot of people a lot of money; put a lot of people out of work, and they're just not going to take kindly to that. You'll never live to see him treated. Back off."
By the time they received permission to take Thomas to Burzynski, it was too late. He had developed 50 tumors throughout his brain and spine, and had been given two weeks to live. Nonetheless, Thomas began antineoplaston therapy on April 13, 2001. Although the tumors began to decrease and his life was extended for another seven months, he died on November 18th of that year. The Navarros are convinced that if Thomas could have started the treatment before his body was poisoned by chemicals, he would be alive today.
The long struggle to save their son cost the Navarros everything they had. When Thomas died, they were deeply in debt and had another four-year-old to care for. They were homeless, with $4 between them, and were living out of their van.
In the 1980s and '90s, the FDA launched—and lost—three litigations against Dr. Burzynski, for which a number of his cured patients travelled to Washington to testify on his behalf. (See the documentary Burzynski, Cancer Is a Serious Business.)
In FDA-permitted investigative new trials for inoperable brain tumors, Phases I and II, all of which were incurable by standard treatments, Burzynski's antineoplastons achieved impressive results: 127 of those patients had survived for more than 5 years. Why has such success been ignored by the mainstream media, which trumpets every "promising breakthrough" claimed by a drug company? Because much of the media's advertising revenue comes from the pharmaceutical industry.
In February of 2012, when the country was experiencing a shortage of cancer drugs, the FDA refused to let Dr. Burzynski provide his antineoplastons, large numbers of which he could have manufactured in his laboratory. Instead, the agency allowed generic drugs from India to be imported, even though drugs from India are of notoriously unreliable quality, there being no systematic control in that country. By contrast, Burzynski's antineoplastons have been proven to work and his lab is kept to the highest standard, since it is regularly inspected by the FDA.
Although Burzynski passed the first two inoperable brain tumor trials with flying colors, the FDA is still requiring that he go through a Phase III trial. Since he receives no grants, he lacks the forty million dollars needed to fund it, and without FDA's approval, his treatment cannot be covered by insurance. Moreover, the patients must first have gone through "standard of care," which means they must have chemo and radiation before they can have antineoplastons. In other words, their immune systems must be destroyed before Burzynski can try to cure them.
Had he remained in his native Poland, Dr. Burzynski would have had far more freedom to practice medicine than he has found here in this "Land of the Free."
The persecution of Dr. Burzynski began in 1983, when the FDA filed a lawsuit against him in the federal courts in Houston. The Texas Medical Board (TMB) began its action in 1984. It asked Burzynski to present 20 cases of cancer patients treated with his antineoplastons. If it found they had received any benefit, the Board would leave him alone. Burzynski presented not 20 but 40 cases, each one showing remarkable improvement. The Board then reneged on its agreement and has harassed Burzynski ever since. The TMB has known for 30 years that Burzynski's treatment can cure terminal cancers, yet they are still trying to put him out of business or even in prison. As a result, untold cancer victims whose lives might have been saved have died.
Our Constitution forbids any law that impinges on the rights of its citizens, yet an agency of bureaucrats in Washington, beholden to the pharmaceutical industry, has assumed the power of life or death over us all.
In January of 2009, a group of physicians and scientists at the Food and Drug Administration wrote a letter to John D. Podesta at the Department of Health and Human Services, charging rampant corruption at the agency and pleading that it be reformed. "There is an atmosphere at FDA in which the honest employee fears the dishonest employee, and not the other way around," they wrote. "Those committed to integrity and the FDA mission cannot act without fear of reprisal."
Citing examples of "shocking managerial corruption and wrongdoing" throughout the agency they added, "We desperately need honesty without fear of retaliation for our evaluations and recommendations, as well as for accountability and transparency to become law. The long-standing FDA practice of secret meetings and secret communications between FDA managers and regulated industry must be strictly prohibited."
Yet nothing was done.
Among the examples of wrongdoing the whistleblowers cited were:
- Receiving written threats of disciplinary action if physicians and scientists failed to change their scientific opinions and recommendations to conform to those of management;
- Removing Black Box warnings recommended by FDA experts;
- Excluding FDA experts from participating in panel meetings because manufacturers "expressed concerns that [FDA experts] are biased."
The physicians and scientists called for the removal and punishing of all managers who had participated in the well-documented corruption. For seven months, they stated, the Commissioner and his "Assistant Commissioner for Accountability and Integrity" had conducted a sham investigation, at the end of which no one was held accountable and no appropriate actions had been taken. The same managers who engaged in the wrongdoing remained in place. They were even rewarded and promoted, whereas those who'd had the courage to speak out and refuse to comply with the wrongdoing had suffered ongoing retaliation.
The whole Agency was riddled with conflicts of interest, they wrote, with many of the FDA's advisors working as consultants for the drug companies!
A case in point: Of the six members of the advisory committee that in 1999 recommended approving Vioxx—the arthritis drug that had to be withdrawn in 2004 because it caused heart attacks—four had received waivers from the conflict-of-interest rule.
Six years after a biomedical engineer had filed a lawsuit against the FDA, a Judge declared that "The independent facts confirm the longstanding pandemic corruption that cries out for new leadership at FDA from the bottom up."
And still, nothing has been done.
In 2007 Marcia Angell, a physician and former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, wrote in an article for the Boston Globe, "It's time to take the Food and Drug Administration back from the drug companies."
Pointing out that in 1992 Congress passed the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, which authorizes drug companies to pay 'user fees' to the FDA for each brand-name drug considered for approval," Dr. Angell observed, "In effect, this put the FDA on the payroll of the industry it regulates. Last year, the fees came to about $300 million, which the companies recover many times over by getting their drugs to market more quickly and charging exorbitant prices.
"But while it's a small investment for the drug companies, it's a lot of money for the agency, and it has drastically changed the way it operates—creating a disproportionate emphasis on approving brand-name drugs in a hurry. Consequently, the part of the agency that reviews new drugs gets more than half its money from user fees—and it has grown rapidly. Meanwhile, the parts that monitor safety, ensure manufacturing standards, and check ads for accuracy have languished or even shrunk.
"The FDA now behaves as though the pharmaceutical industry is its user, not the public," concluded Dr. Angell.
And still, nothing has changed.
Our country was founded on freedom, yet our right to freedom of choice in medical treatment is still being denied. Why? Because it threatens the power and profits of a multi-billion-dollar medical monopoly.
The issue is not just Burzynski—or any other innovative, pioneering practitioner; it concerns the right of every doctor to practice his profession without interference by the government, as long as he does no harm. Let the results speak for themselves!
Years ago, Benjamin Rush, a physician and signer of the Declaration of Independence, warned: