Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business (Free Doco Preview)

JackBootedThug

Veteran XV
This makers of this documentary are offering a free preview until June 20.


Burzynski The Movie - Cancer Is Serious Business


Burzynski, the Movie is the story of a medical doctor and Ph.D biochemist named Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski who won the largest, and possibly the most convoluted and intriguing legal battle against the Food & Drug Administration in American history.

His victorious battles with the United States government were centered around Dr. Burzynski's gene-targeted cancer medicines he discovered in the 1970's called Antineoplastons, which have currently completed Phase II FDA-supervised clinical trials in 2009 and could begin the final phase of FDA testing in 2011–barring the ability to raise the required $150 million to fund the final phase of FDA clinical trials.

When Antineoplastons are approved, it will mark the first time in history a single scientist, not a pharmaceutical company, will hold the exclusive patent and distribution rights on a paradigm-shifting medical breakthrough.

Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Various cancer survivors are presented in the film who chose these medicines instead of surgery, chemotherapy or radiation - with full disclosure of medical records to support their diagnosis and recovery - as well as systematic (non-anecdotal) FDA-supervised clinical trial data comparing Antineoplastons to other available treatments—which is published within the peer-reviewed medical literature.

One form of cancer - diffuse, intrinsic, childhood brainstem glioma has never before been cured in any scientifically controlled clinical trial in the history of medicine. Antineoplastons hold the first cures in history - dozens of them. [ANP - PubMed 2003] [ANP - PubMed 2006] [Rad & other - PubMed 2008] [Chemo/Rad - PubMed 2005]

This documentary takes the audience through the treacherous, yet victorious, 14-year journey both Dr. Burzynski and his patients have had to endure in order to obtain FDA-approved clinical trials of Antineoplastons.

Dr. Burzynski resides and practices medicine in Houston, Texas. He was able to initially produce and administer his discovery without FDA-approval from 1977-1995 because the state of Texas at this time did not require that Texas physicians be required to adhere to Federal law in this situation. This law has since been changed.

As with anything that changes current-day paradigms, Burzynski's ability to successfully treat incurable cancer with such consistency has baffled the industry. Ironically, this fact had prompted numerous investigations by the Texas Medical Board, who relentlessly took Dr. Burzynski as high as the state supreme court in their failed attempt to halt his practices.

Likewise, the Food and Drug Administration engaged in four Federal Grand Juries spanning over a decade attempting to indict Dr. Burzynski, all of which ended in no finding of fault on his behalf. Finally, Dr. Burzynski was indicted in their 5th Grand Jury in 1995, resulting in two federal trials and two sets of jurors finding him not guilty of any wrongdoing. If convicted, Dr. Burzynski would have faced a maximum of 290 years in a federal prison and $18.5 million in fines.

However, what was revealed a few years after Dr. Burzynski won his freedom, helps to paint a more coherent picture regarding the true motivation of the United States government's relentless persecution of Stanislaw Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D.

Note: When Antineoplastons are approved for pubic use, it will allow a single scientist to hold an exclusive license to manufacture and sell these medicines on the open market—before they become generic—leaving PhRMA absent in profiting from the most effective gene-targeted cancer treatment the world has ever seen.
 
Dot. Watching when I get home. I've kept up with this story. It's one of the best examples for showing how much of a failure the FDA is.
 
angel investors eat this kind of shit up why didnt he go after investor funding to pursue FDA approval in the 90s? The whole "drug companies are keeping the man down" argument is dumb.

http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/clinical-trials.html said:
Latest Developments

Clinical Trials: Antineoplastons in Treatment of Brainstem Glioma

Orphan Drug designation

In September 2004, the FDA granted Orphan Drug designation for Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 for the treatment of Brainstem Glioma. The Orphan Drug designation has been extended to all Gliomas

The FDA's orphan drug program is intended to encourage research, development and approval of products for treatment of diseases that affect fewer than 200,000 patients in the United States per year and provide a significant therapeutic advantage over existing treatments.

Orphan drug designation enables the Burzynski Research Institute to apply for assistance from the Office of Orphan Product Development in guiding the drug through the regulatory approval process.

Phase III clinical trial - Brainstem Glioma

The protocol for the Phase III trials is ready. Phase III trials are expected to start in 2011.

Last Update: January 2011

i'd be curious to read an unbiased article on the subject. i highly doubt the documentary will provide that, unfortunately.

edit: http://movies.nytimes.com/2010/06/04/movies/04burzynski.html

sad
 
Last edited:
Even if he didn't discover a miracle cure for cancer, I'd take my chances with his treatment any day over radiation and chemo.

The part where the NCI tried to sabotage the trial is completely believable, cancer is big business, they've even managed to pass it off in the form of products made out of pink plastic - feel good about your purchase of this blender because a portion of your purchase will go to big pharma er rather the war on cancer.

related:

http://www.naturalnews.com/032700_National_Cancer_Institute_Dr_Samuel_Epstein.html
 
Last edited:
I'm going to make two predictions here:

1. The movie has received very poor reviews, calling it a pile of bullshit.
2. The movie maker(s) and supporters will be responding to these reviews by saying that they are part of the vast conspiracy to cover up his miracle treatment.

Off to the web, bbiab
 
Holy shit, I'm Nostradamus, I'm a real live psychic.

Eric Merola, a former art director of commercials, is either unusually credulous, or doesn't understand the difference between a documentary and an advertisement, or has an undisclosed relationship with the subject of his allegedly nonfiction first film. Consciously or not, Merola is shilling madly for Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, a Polish-born physician who has run afoul of federal authorities and shown up on several quackometers for his claim to have cured scores of patients of a lethal brain cancer with a treatment derived from human urine. Burzynski's smooth patter and bad dye job don't clinch the case against him—though how he gained the trust of desperate patients is anybody's guess—but neither do they mitigate the powerful stench that rises from his plaintive cries of victimization by "jealous" government agencies. Narrated in a weirdly robotic voiceover, Burzynski violates every basic rule of ethical filmmaking: Merola interviews only Burzynski's supporters, produces no patient records other than the doctor's own, and offers no credible proof of the drug's success and no data about its side effects, even as he slams chemotherapy and radiation. Who's the bigger charlatan—Burzynski or Merola—and why is this conspiratorial rubbish being released into theaters?

QUACK-QUACK Goes Burzynski - Page 1 - Movies - New York - Village Voice
 
ahhh there we go

good find

i did like this snippet from the wiki

wiki said:
In a May 22, 2007 review article entitled Recent clinical trials in diffuse intrinsic brainstem glioma, Dr. Burzynski is the sole author. He states regarding one of his childhood brain tumor trials on page 384 that, "The study is closed for accrual and the final results will be evaluated before the end of 2007." No peer reviewed medical journal article discussing the results has to date been published.

Nothing like making claims with no peer review!

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/patient/page2
 
Last edited:
Ok, so I'm guessing vanster and eggi haven't had close ones that have gone through chemo. (baseless assumption) BUT:

The results from FDA CLINICAL TRIALS show greater cure rates with none of the toxic side effects, as compared to traditional methods.

I'd prefer it any day of the week.

If your only rebuttal is a wiki snippet or some critic review, of only the documentary, from new york (lol), and the whole of the internet isn't all over how this guy is a scam, there is at least some validity.
 
Last edited:
my mom has had cancer & gone through chemo twice and just had surgery today for some cancer related issues. sorry i'm a skeptic of grand, unrealistic claims coupled with conspiracy theory-esque excuses for why the claims haven't been made good.

If the phase 3 trials go well and the dude publishes the results in a peer-reviewed journal like the journal of medicine, that will be great. and he will make a lot of money on the treatments if they are effective. until then, i'll remain skeptical of this random quack in houston.
 
Sorry to hear that. I was wishing my assumption was true on the hope that maybe it was ignorance, and that you didn't know such pain.

I will remain hopeful of the treatment, and skeptical of the way the FDA and the NCI sabotaged his work for 30 YEARS.
 
Ok, so I'm guessing vanster and eggi haven't had close ones that have gone through chemo. (baseless assumption) BUT:

The results from FDA CLINICAL TRIALS show greater cure rates with none of the toxic side effects, as compared to traditional methods.

I'd prefer it any day of the week.

If your only rebuttal is a wiki snippet or some critic review, of only the documentary, from new york (lol), and the whole of the internet isn't all over how this guy is a scam, there is at least some validity.

I would also love for such a treatment to work. I won't, however, believe some guy who claims his treatment works without some separate evidence supporting it. You don't want to believe a wiki snippet or a critic review, but you're willing to just believe the data coming from this one man?
 
When science has truly discovered something great, and it is announced, there is great attention paid to possible sources of error. The tests must be able to be independently duplicated, everything must be on the table in plain view.

When something this game-changing is announced, and the possibility of being wrong isn't addressed once, I become supremely skeptical. And for those of us that have had family members afflicted by this terrible disease, it makes his grand claims especially reprehensible. It's possible he's right, but I've seen this happen far too many times before, with the exact same M.O. every time. Yes it's possible he has something, it's possible that he made this movie exposing a grand conspiracy to keep his cure quiet, and it's possible that a scientist could discover something and announce it as a cure without giving a passing glance to errors he might have made. It's all possible, sure.

It's a lot more likely, however, that he's completely, utterly, full of shit.
 
Regardless of this documentary's findings... if you think for one minute that big pharma is looking out for your best interest you are the biggest sheep there is.

Good health makes a lot of sense, but not a lot of dollars!

This is a very telling documentary. All the standard bullshit about how documentaries take one stance aside, it is very compelling.

 
Regardless of this documentary's findings... if you think for one minute that big pharma is looking out for your best interest you are the biggest sheep there is.

Good health makes a lot of sense, but not a lot of dollars!

This is a very telling documentary. All the standard bullshit about how documentaries take one stance aside, it is very compelling.


Big pharma looking out for its own interests doesn't make this doctor's claims (of efficacy of the drugs) any more or less likely. Only detailed studies can do that.
 
I would also love for such a treatment to work. I won't, however, believe some guy who claims his treatment works without some separate evidence supporting it. You don't want to believe a wiki snippet or a critic review, but you're willing to just believe the data coming from this one man?

I hold results from Phase II FDA clinical trials over wikipedia snippets and a liberal arts major documentary critic, yes.

The drug is now entering Phase III trials.

(lol wikipedia) Clinical trial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I'm not addressing pharmaceutical companies, they have no soul, rife with corruption, and are one of the most misanthropic human devices ever. I'm not talking about the FDA either.

I'm talking about this guy and the weasels backing him. I'm calling bullshit violation on him.
 
Back
Top