Police Officer Tells Heartbreaking Story While Claiming Government Is Hiding The Cure For Cancer

eddie wrote:http://www.burzynskiclinic.com

Welcome to the Burzynski Clinic

Innovative and cutting-edge Personalized Cancer Therapy

Medical expertise based on over 35 years of clinical experience and research

Our Approach to Cancer:

"Our goal is to provide sophisticated cancer care utilizing a personalized and targeted therapy approach.

Our personalized cancer therapy utilizes an understanding of each patient’s genetic make-up to unravel the biology of their cancer and identifies effective treatment strategies using targeted therapies that are aimed at specific genes or proteins that are found only in cancer cells or their environment."



It's in Houston, Texas

When Sandra Cohen was diagnosed with breast cancer, she did whatever she could to avoid chemotherapy. She took homeopathic remedies and herbs, and she changed her diet. She even tried laser therapy. Nothing worked. When she reached stage IV—the cancer metastasized to her lungs, clavicle bone and lymph nodes—her doctors were shocked. “The doctors here just kind of shook their heads and said, ‘How did you let this go so far?’” she recalls.But she didn’t give up.

Instead, she went to Stanislaw Burzynski.As a young doctor in the 1970s, Burzynski began treating patients with antineoplastons, a collection of peptides, amino acids and amino acid derivatives he originally isolated from blood and urine. Since then, by his reckoning, he’s used the drugs to treat over 2,300 cancer patients—though he isn’t trained as an oncologist. He’s been the subject of laudatory documentaries and promoted by the likes of Dr. Mehmet Oz, the famous surgeon and TV personality, and Suzanne Somers, the actress-turned-naturopathic-medicine-advocate. “No one has worked harder, and no one has been more persecuted for his maverick approach,” Somers wrote in her book Knockout: Interviews With Doctors Who Are Curing Cancer.

But there's no verifiable evidence antineoplastons work. Nor are they the gentle treatment Burzynski claims them to be. He has run Food and Drug Administration–approved clinical trials on the drugs since the 1990s, during which time at least six study participants died from hypernatremia, or high levels of sodium in the blood—likely due to the sodium-rich antineoplastons. Among the victims was a 6-year-old boy.

Over the years, Burzynski has been the subject of numerous investigations and legal proceedings, brought by grand juries, the FDA and the Texas Medical Board. As it’s become more difficult to continue registering his patients in antineoplaston trials, Burzynski has treated patients in other ways, still outside the medical mainstream. He uses chemotherapy drugs in combinations that have not been scientifically tested—and whose toxicities, according to the medical board, pose an unwarranted threat to patients.

Now the Texas Medical Board has brought yet another case against Burzynski, seeking to revoke his license. As the hearing got underway in Austin in November, some of the doctor’s former patients and admirers gathered to support him and to protest with placards. “I am a naturalist, and I believe that the body can be healed without the use of burning, cutting and poisoning it,” said one woman, whose sister died of lung cancer. “I am for whoever is trying to do their part in saving people from having to go through pain.”

Experimenting on People

“When I was first diagnosed, I thought this was it. I started making plans for my funeral,” Wayne Merritt says. It was 2009, he had pancreatic cancer metastasized to the liver, and his doctor gave him six months to live. Less than a year before, his wife, Lisa, had been diagnosed with breast cancer, and he saw how difficult it was for her to go through chemotherapy. Wayne was determined that he wouldn’t spend the last six months of his life feeling sick.But then Lisa heard about Burzynski. The Merritts went down to his clinic, where they learned Wayne didn’t qualify for antineoplastons but might respond to some other drugs. The couple made it very clear, Lisa said, that Wayne didn’t want chemo. They saw Burzynski for 10 minutes, then were turned over to his staff. Lisa says Wayne had a daily appointment with a woman wearing a name tag that said “Dr.,” and whom the other staff called “doctor”—but who, the Texas Medical Board says, isn’t licensed to practice medicine in Texas.

Back home in Armuchee, Georgia, they got a shock. On their next visit with their local oncologist, she looked at the clinic’s prescriptions and dropped three bombshells: One, Wayne was indeed on chemotherapy, among other drugs; two, the medications would cost about $30,000 a month—not the $3,000 to $6,000 a month they had been told; three, his medication regimen was dangerous. “It was devastating,” Lisa says. “We felt like we got dropped on our face.”

In a 48-page complaint, the Texas Medical Board says Burzynski and his staff knowingly misled patients, attracting them to the clinic with the promise of being included in trials for antineoplastons, when they knew most of the patients wouldn’t qualify. The doctor or his staff told patients they would get the antineoplastons, before charging large retainers and ordering other treatments. The Burzynski clinic admits that about 5,700 of its 8,000 patients have received treatment other than antineoplastons.

The board alleges that Burzynski charged “exorbitant” amounts, billed for unnecessary tests, and failed to adequately disclose his stake in the pharmacy and laboratory that provided many patients’ drugs and tests. Perhaps even more worrying, the board says Burzynski and his staff made numerous medical and record-keeping errors, including misinterpreting scans and using the wrong tests to evaluate patients’ progress. Then there are the untested drug combinations. On its website, the Burzynski Clinic says it offers “personalized cancer therapy,” using genetic analysis to customize treatment for each patient. But in expert testimony for the medical board, Dr. Cynthia Wetmore, director of the program in Developmental Therapeutics in the Aflac Cancer and Blood Disorders Center in Atlanta, said, “There’s not a possible way to tell what drug is helping and what drug is not helping. The drugs are given in nonstandard combinations that never have been tested. They’re given in nonstandard doses that are not known to be effective or safe. And combining them is experimenting on humans, which cannot be done outside a clinical study. That’s unethical.”

The board concluded that because of Burzynski’s actions and those of his subordinates, “each of the patients in this case either suffered considerable toxicity effects or were put at significant risk of considerable toxicity effects.”

eddie wrote:I think you're right, and I've always maintained that there is a key to healing if you look at the biology of the person.

I am watching my best friend go through chemo and she is as sick as a dog.
Sassy and 4ever were an enormous help with advice in the beginning re the chemo.

Ben Reilly wrote:He's a shill for Burzynski, a quack who should be in prison.

When Sandra Cohen was diagnosed with breast cancer, she did whatever she could to avoid chemotherapy. She took homeopathic remedies and herbs, and she changed her diet. She even tried laser therapy. Nothing worked. When she reached stage IV—the cancer metastasized to her lungs, clavicle bone and lymph nodes—her doctors were shocked. “The doctors here just kind of shook their heads and said, ‘How did you let this go so far?’” she recalls.But she didn’t give up.

Instead, she went to Stanislaw Burzynski.As a young doctor in the 1970s, Burzynski began treating patients with antineoplastons, a collection of peptides, amino acids and amino acid derivatives he originally isolated from blood and urine. Since then, by his reckoning, he’s used the drugs to treat over 2,300 cancer patients—though he isn’t trained as an oncologist. He’s been the subject of laudatory documentaries and promoted by the likes of Dr. Mehmet Oz, the famous surgeon and TV personality, and Suzanne Somers, the actress-turned-naturopathic-medicine-advocate. “No one has worked harder, and no one has been more persecuted for his maverick approach,” Somers wrote in her book Knockout: Interviews With Doctors Who Are Curing Cancer.

But there's no verifiable evidence antineoplastons work. Nor are they the gentle treatment Burzynski claims them to be. He has run Food and Drug Administration–approved clinical trials on the drugs since the 1990s, during which time at least six study participants died from hypernatremia, or high levels of sodium in the blood—likely due to the sodium-rich antineoplastons. Among the victims was a 6-year-old boy.

Over the years, Burzynski has been the subject of numerous investigations and legal proceedings, brought by grand juries, the FDA and the Texas Medical Board. As it’s become more difficult to continue registering his patients in antineoplaston trials, Burzynski has treated patients in other ways, still outside the medical mainstream. He uses chemotherapy drugs in combinations that have not been scientifically tested—and whose toxicities, according to the medical board, pose an unwarranted threat to patients.

Now the Texas Medical Board has brought yet another case against Burzynski, seeking to revoke his license. As the hearing got underway in Austin in November, some of the doctor’s former patients and admirers gathered to support him and to protest with placards. “I am a naturalist, and I believe that the body can be healed without the use of burning, cutting and poisoning it,” said one woman, whose sister died of lung cancer. “I am for whoever is trying to do their part in saving people from having to go through pain.”

Experimenting on People

“When I was first diagnosed, I thought this was it. I started making plans for my funeral,” Wayne Merritt says. It was 2009, he had pancreatic cancer metastasized to the liver, and his doctor gave him six months to live. Less than a year before, his wife, Lisa, had been diagnosed with breast cancer, and he saw how difficult it was for her to go through chemotherapy. Wayne was determined that he wouldn’t spend the last six months of his life feeling sick.But then Lisa heard about Burzynski. The Merritts went down to his clinic, where they learned Wayne didn’t qualify for antineoplastons but might respond to some other drugs. The couple made it very clear, Lisa said, that Wayne didn’t want chemo. They saw Burzynski for 10 minutes, then were turned over to his staff. Lisa says Wayne had a daily appointment with a woman wearing a name tag that said “Dr.,” and whom the other staff called “doctor”—but who, the Texas Medical Board says, isn’t licensed to practice medicine in Texas.

Back home in Armuchee, Georgia, they got a shock. On their next visit with their local oncologist, she looked at the clinic’s prescriptions and dropped three bombshells: One, Wayne was indeed on chemotherapy, among other drugs; two, the medications would cost about $30,000 a month—not the $3,000 to $6,000 a month they had been told; three, his medication regimen was dangerous. “It was devastating,” Lisa says. “We felt like we got dropped on our face.”

In a 48-page complaint, the Texas Medical Board says Burzynski and his staff knowingly misled patients, attracting them to the clinic with the promise of being included in trials for antineoplastons, when they knew most of the patients wouldn’t qualify. The doctor or his staff told patients they would get the antineoplastons, before charging large retainers and ordering other treatments. The Burzynski clinic admits that about 5,700 of its 8,000 patients have received treatment other than antineoplastons.

The board alleges that Burzynski charged “exorbitant” amounts, billed for unnecessary tests, and failed to adequately disclose his stake in the pharmacy and laboratory that provided many patients’ drugs and tests. Perhaps even more worrying, the board says Burzynski and his staff made numerous medical and record-keeping errors, including misinterpreting scans and using the wrong tests to evaluate patients’ progress. Then there are the untested drug combinations. On its website, the Burzynski Clinic says it offers “personalized cancer therapy,” using genetic analysis to customize treatment for each patient. But in expert testimony for the medical board, Dr. Cynthia Wetmore, director of the program in Developmental Therapeutics in the Aflac Cancer and Blood Disorders Center in Atlanta, said, “There’s not a possible way to tell what drug is helping and what drug is not helping. The drugs are given in nonstandard combinations that never have been tested. They’re given in nonstandard doses that are not known to be effective or safe. And combining them is experimenting on humans, which cannot be done outside a clinical study. That’s unethical.”

The board concluded that because of Burzynski’s actions and those of his subordinates, “each of the patients in this case either suffered considerable toxicity effects or were put at significant risk of considerable toxicity effects.”

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/03/04/stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-medical-malfeasance-429057.html

Ben Reilly wrote:@HT:

Home?

Better that than become a guinea pig for a man who is going to charge you 10 times what he told you he'd charge, pump your body full of untested chemicals and not even give a shit enough about you to keep accurate records of what he's done.

eddie wrote:Was the police officer lying then?

Ben Reilly wrote:@HT:

Home?

Better that than become a guinea pig for a man who is going to charge you 10 times what he told you he'd charge, pump your body full of untested chemicals and not even give a shit enough about you to keep accurate records of what he's done.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:@HT:

Home?

Better that than become a guinea pig for a man who is going to charge you 10 times what he told you he'd charge, pump your body full of untested chemicals and not even give a shit enough about you to keep accurate records of what he's done.

How can you get into the head of a dying person?   You can't.  And if they choose to do this, who are you to try and stop them?

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Was the police officer lying then?

I think he's confused.

Cancer is a deadly disease that has no cure. There are therapies that work for some patients, but not all. Many cancer patients still die of cancer despite these therapies, and I can see how someone would decide it was the therapy that killed them, not the cancer.

But even if the therapy weakened them, it was still the best scientifically tested method to give them any chance of surviving.

If it's actually true that it's not, please imagine the implications of that truth for a moment.

eddie wrote:Why the hell would you just go home? Lots of people have treated themselves after doctors have pumped them full of toxic chemical and told them to go home and die.
Why wouldn't you try something else? What's to lose?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:@HT:

Home?

Better that than become a guinea pig for a man who is going to charge you 10 times what he told you he'd charge, pump your body full of untested chemicals and not even give a shit enough about you to keep accurate records of what he's done.

But...I do agree with you about the extortionate charges he implements. To me, that's not good.    Having said that...how much are you charged for chemo in  the States?

For patients not covered by health insurance, chemotherapy costs typically include the doctor fee, drug administration fee, drug cost and possibly facility fee, depending on how it is administered. Total cost depends on the type of cancer, the individual case, drug regimen used, method of administration and length of time prescribed or number of treatments required. The total cost is about $10,000-$200,000 or more. For example, to administer chemotherapy to a patient, Saint Elizabeth Regional Medical Center[2] in Nebraska charges about $270 for an intramuscular or subcutaneous injection. They charge about $290 for chemotherapy IV push -- a quick way of administering a drug through an IV -- and $290 for each additional drug. Expect to pay $650, not including doctor fee or drug fee, for one hour of chemotherapy IV infusion, and about an additional $160 for each additional hour of treatment, with the same drug or another drug. They charge about $780 for chemotherapy administration into the central nervous system, including a spinal puncture.

The price of chemotherapy drugs varies widely, depending on the drug. For example, according to research[3] from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, one course of a drug for chemotherapy for breast cancer can cost about $900-$15,000, depending on the drug(s); and, if growth factor support is added to lessen side effects, that increases costs from more than $4,000 to more than $30,000. According to an article[4] in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, combination chemotherapy regimens typically used for advanced colorectal cancer can range from almost $12,000 to over $30,000 for an eight-week course, depending on the drugs. But new drugs usually cost more: for example, Adcetris[5] , a recently approved drug that treats recurrences of some types of lymphoma, can cost more than $120,000 for a course of treatment, and so does Yervoy[6] , a new skin cancer drug.

http://health.costhelper.com/chemo.html

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Was the police officer lying then?

I think he's confused.

Cancer is a deadly disease that has no cure. There are therapies that work for some patients, but not all. Many cancer patients still die of cancer despite these therapies, and I can see how someone would decide it was the therapy that killed them, not the cancer.

But even if the therapy weakened them, it was still the best scientifically tested method to give them any chance of surviving.

If it's actually true that it's not, please imagine the implications of that truth for a moment.

Ben Reilly wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

How can you get into the head of a dying person?   You can't.  And if they choose to do this, who are you to try and stop them?

I wouldn't try to stop them, but I would try to stop Dr. Frankenstein from using people as lab rats.

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Why the hell would you just go home? Lots of people have treated themselves after doctors have pumped them full of toxic chemical and told them to go home and die.
Why wouldn't you try something else? What's to lose?

Your dignity? Your ability to die in comfort surrounded by friends and family? Your children's financial future?

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

I think he's confused.

Cancer is a deadly disease that has no cure. There are therapies that work for some patients, but not all. Many cancer patients still die of cancer despite these therapies, and I can see how someone would decide it was the therapy that killed them, not the cancer.

But even if the therapy weakened them, it was still the best scientifically tested method to give them any chance of surviving.

If it's actually true that it's not, please imagine the implications of that truth for a moment.

Perhaps it's simply the best and cheapest, profit-making method.

And whether you'd choose Burzynski's pathway or not, don't tell me you'd simply "go home to die".  That's bollocks.

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Was the police officer lying then?

I think he's confused.

Cancer is a deadly disease that has no cure. There are therapies that work for some patients, but not all. Many cancer patients still die of cancer despite these therapies, and I can see how someone would decide it was the therapy that killed them, not the cancer.

But even if the therapy weakened them, it was still the best scientifically tested method to give them any chance of surviving.

If it's actually true that it's not, please imagine the implications of that truth for a moment.

Perhaps it's simply the best and cheapest, profit-making method.

And whether you'd choose Burzynski's pathway or not, don't tell me you'd simply "go home to die".  That's bollocks.

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Why the hell would you just go home? Lots of people have treated themselves after doctors have pumped them full of toxic chemical and told them to go home and die.
Why wouldn't you try something else? What's to lose?

Your dignity? Your ability to die in comfort surrounded by friends and family? Your children's financial future?

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Your dignity? Your ability to die in comfort surrounded by friends and family? Your children's financial future?

I don't think you know how desperate you'd become until you were walking in the shoes of a terminally ill cancer patient.

Ben Reilly wrote:OK, the replies are coming too fast and too furious for me to reply to and I have work, so I'm bailing from this thread. Just read up on this Burzynski clown before you buy into his snake oil -- remember, none of you even knew who he was when edds posted this up.

Syl wrote:Money?

The thread moved so quick whilst I was reading...that was the reply to Eddies 'what can you lose' question.

Ben Reilly wrote:OK, the replies are coming too fast and too furious for me to reply to and I have work, so I'm bailing from this thread. Just read up on this Burzynski clown before you buy into his snake oil -- remember, none of you even knew who he was when edds posted this up.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:Money?

The thread moved so quick whilst I was reading...that was the reply to Eddies 'what can you lose' question.

I feel passionate about this subject because it's affected me personally on many levels with many loved ones.   I don't deny that chemo can help, but in this day and age, it shouldn't be the be all and end all.  It only works sometimes, and for that alone, it should be a priority to get to the bottom of why cancer occurs, and how to help the body to fight it.

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

I feel passionate about this subject because it's affected me personally on many levels with many loved ones.   I don't deny that chemo can help, but in this day and age, it shouldn't be the be all and end all.  It only works sometimes, and for that alone, it should be a priority to get to the bottom of why cancer occurs, and how to help the body to fight it.

No I agree...cancer is horrendous, it attacks young and old out of the blue and no one is immune.
It's so horrible people will do or pay everything they can to help a loved one.
If this man is making fortunes out of treating cancer ridden patients, some reports say he is a miracle worker others say the opposite.....it's the money issue that would worry me. Is he a con man preying on peoples tragedy?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

No I agree...cancer is horrendous, it attacks young and old out of the blue and no one is immune.
It's so horrible people will do or pay everything they can to help a loved one.
If this man is making fortunes out of treating cancer ridden patients, some reports say he is a miracle worker others say the opposite.....it's the money issue that would worry me. Is he a con man preying on peoples tragedy?

What you have to remember is that it's only here we don't pay.  Everywhere else, you have to pay for your chemo, and it can go into the thousands.

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

What you have to remember is that it's only here we don't pay.  Everywhere else, you have to pay for your chemo, and it can go into the thousands.

That's true, but if he had such a breakthrough would not the NHS and other health organisations jump at the chance to use it?

Syl wrote:Neither do I, and as Ben (I think) pointed out no one had heard of this man or his cancer treatments on here till today.

It will be a miracle if and when someone finds a cure.. or anything that could prolong a cancer sufferers life to help them to live without the pain and side effects of present  treatments.

Syl wrote:Cancer in children is the worst.
Eddie, I hope your friend is coping as well as could be expected. x

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:Cancer in children is the worst.
Eddie, I hope your friend is coping as well as could be expected. x

She's grumpy today! She never moans really but I tease her relentlessly and she loves it secretly. We FaceTime every day except when the chemo is really working on her, usually two days after having it.

Ben Reilly wrote:Doesn't the fact that Stephen Hawking is still alive, treated for decades by the NHS, sort of prove that the NHS will spend lots of money to keep a patient alive?

Ben Reilly wrote:Doesn't the fact that Stephen Hawking is still alive, treated for decades by the NHS, sort of prove that the NHS will spend lots of money to keep a patient alive?