Monday, October 8, 2012

7th Period


AP Biology Students!

I hope that you enjoyed watching the Burzynski film.  What I would like for you to do is to find your class period and post with your name (so that you can receive credit), your thoughts on the film.  What facts stood out to you?  Why have you never heard of this guy before?  Do you believe him?  Why or why not?  Would you recommend his treatment center for someone that you know who has cancer?  Any sort of reaction that you have is fine, I just want to hear what went through your mind as you watched the film.  Since this is an AP class, I expect a thorough reaction to be posted tonight.  Comment on this post if you are a member of this class period and I will give you credit as long as it is completed by 11:59 pm.  See you Wednesday and I'm looking forward to being back :)

Coach Chvatal

26 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Samantha St. Germain
      My thoughts on the film was that it shouldn't really matter that chemotherapy and radiation businesses would be put 'out of business' because endorsing Burzynski's treatment would save many lives or at least keep people from being harmed from other treatments. The fact that really stood out to me is the overall simplicity of his treatment. I mean, he's just replacing a peptide that is not in cancerous patients that happen to be in healthy ones. What also stood out to me was that it worked at a remarkable rate, curing the 'incurable' cancers. The majority of the masses have never heard of him simply because we aren't suppose to. He's considered a 'phony' and not a reliable doctor by major corporations and companies. I believe him because there isn't that much evidence to the contrary, or at least from what I've been exposed to. We were shown several examples were malignant brain tumors were eradicated in a span of a few months with scar tissue remaining, I would be pretty blind not to notice that significance. I would recommend this treatment to someone with cancer because even if they weren't totally cancer free, they would have a better quality of life while on the treatment.

      Delete
  2. What went through my mind as I watched the Burzynski Film was that this guy seems to be doing incredible cancer treatment compared to many other major corporate companies. Not only does his treatment seem to be more effective than others but he cures cancer because he wants to and does not seek to train to gain massive amounts of money out of it like many of the corporate companies today. The reason why I have probably never heard of this guy is probably because many major corporate companies have been trying to shut this man's cancer facility down and try to isolate him in his location in Texas.Looking at his work it seems believable because there is a sufficient samples size of cancer patients that are on his treatment and he has a good enough success rate compared to many companies. All in all after seeing the video I can't say that I would recommend him because the video is only one source of information. I can only give an accurate response if I have more data so I can't say I would recommend him at this moment with the limited amount of information I have learned.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nina Siso
    Facts that stood out to me were that Burzynski found a new peptide and was able to identify that it was missing in people with cancer. I thought it was cool that he was able to make a drug that contained theses peptides (the antineoplastons). Im pretty sure I have never heard of him before because all of this happened either before I was born or when I was very young. Also, no one in my family has had life threatening cancer, so we have never had to look at various treatments. I beleive that his treatment works because there is actual evidence to prove it. he also seems to really care about his patients. If I knew someone who had cancer, I would definitely reccomend his treatment to them because it seems to be effective, and it has no harmful side effects like radiation and chemotherapy do. My main reaction to this movie was disappointment and disbeleif at the FDA. There is a man who is actually curing cancer patients without ruining their health, and the FDA tries to get his medical liscense revoked. I was shocked at how many times the FDA and the Texas Medical Board tried to stop Dr.Burzynski from practicing. They even stole his patient's medical records (on numerous occassions). I thought it was irresponsible for the FDA to do this to Burzynski because they didn't want to lose there money when radiation and chemotherapy were no longer useful. All they cared about was making money, not keeping the American people healthy. My other reaction was complete awe that Burzynski could create a drug that could cure cancer. So many people suffer and die from cancer. The fact that someone is able to help is truly remarkable and uplifting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. . . .they didn't want to lose *their* money . . .

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  4. I found the Burzynski film to be both interesting and frustrating. Burzynski has found a treatment for cancer that gets rid of the cancer without any adverse effects, yet the FDA tried so hard to shut down his practice even though it was saving lives. All the FDA cared about was if their precious chemotherapy investors were receiving money. They didn’t care that if Burzynski was shut down lives would be lost instead of saved. The FDA is supposed to ensure that the American public receives the best in care and medicine, but here is an example of how money is the number one concern. From what I can tell from the video the percentage of people cured from cancer using antineoplastons versus the use of chemotherapy had a major difference (27.5% vs. .9%). Obviously it works better than chemotherapy treatment so why would the FDA press so hard to put Burzynski in jail and terminate his practice? The correct answer is money. I have never heard of this guy before and my mother who sends disease information out from the CDC has never heard of him either. It’s probably because the FDA/government doesn’t want him to me the top guy in cancer research. They don’t want him to receive funding so they don’t publicize Dr. Burzynski. I would recommend Burynski’s treatment to someone with cancer because it’s better to take a risk at something that won’t harm you than doing chemotherapy that could give you another form of cancer.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jessica Ford
    I hadn't heard of Dr. Burzynski before I saw this video. The way he came up with the drug seemed so simple. He looked for the chemicals that were not present in the body when there was a tumor and put those chemicals in the body. The chemicals would then kill the cancer and the majority of the time it didn't come back. I was surprised when they did an experiment to see whether chemo. or Dr. Burzynski's drug worked better on patients. With chemo. patients were 9% cancer free but the procedure was toxic. With Dr. Burzynski's drug patients were 25% cancer free and it was not toxic. It made me angry that the government was not letting this treatment be known. They violated his Constituional rights and didn't have a case when they took him to court. I have known a lot of people who have died from cancer and some have been my family memebers. If they had known and done this treatment some of them might still be alive. I believe his treatment works, maybe not all the time but it is better than what we have now. I would recomend him to someone who has cancer.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Danna Downs.
    I'm pissed because I typed a full thing and then it didn't upload on here. FRIGGIN AWESOME. Anyway let's try this again.
    I quite enjoyed the video that we watched! I had not heard about Dr. Burzynski's method of treating cancer before hand. It seems that his ideas on how to cure cancer were so simple but it's quite obvious why "modern" treatments cannot compete, as well as why they want to eliminate Dr. Burzynski and his ideas all together. Highly paid government corporations such as FDA and Pharma have a lot relying on chemotherapy and radiation. Years of scientists studying and devoting their lives to find a cure for cancer and millions of dollars have gone into these programs. Technology was built according to the ideas of radiation and chemotherapy and are highly recommended as treatments from other doctors. All of a sudden a Doctor comes in with a simple, nontoxic, and healthy way of curing cancer, and all he did was look at the differences in people who have cancer and the people who don't. An idea that was over-looked, find something that cancer patients do not possess that cancer-free people have. Once this substance is isolated, administer is to cancer patients and the problem will go away, and it did! Without causing damage to the body through radiation and without drastic side effects. Before, when Dr. Burzynski's treatment was not available, it is obvious why people would undergo such harmful radiation, because no matter what the side effects were, there was still the potential of living a few more months which outweighed dying within a few days. Now that Dr. Burzynski's method is available, logically people would choose the safe way to live a long and healthy life, which again leads to why they want Burzynski to go unheard of. Burzynski will potentially take all of the main corporations clients which is the foundation of their income. Which, although the efforts to get rid of him, with multiple trials and false accusations, doesn't seem like all that much when you look at it from the corporate point of view. What they see is someone threatening their income, but what we the people see is someone trying to prevent future treatments of those who's lives need to be saved and can be saved through Dr. Burzynski. Yes, it is very selfish, but in regards to research, it's all going down the drain and being criticized and rejected because there is a better way to go about things. Dr. Burzynski's treatment can cure and save lives. It has been found that the outlooks of the treatment are positive and helpful and nontoxic. We can see that they work! Anyone who has cancer should be appointed to the care of his treatment because it is shown that it does work! That is why FDA and Pharma want him to go unknown, he is taking away their clients, he is saving the lives that they should be saving, and the lives that they want the credit for saving. I wish I could tell everyone I knew about Dr. Burzynski! His ideas seem to work, and when it comes to a point, Greed will be overcome by morals of right and wrong. People's lives being saved are more important than the money that you make, and that is what Dr. Burzynski represents.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Suprisingly, at the end of the Burzynski video, I found myself annoyed more than anything else. Dr. Burzynski has found a much more effective treatment for cancer, and it was being buried by bureaucracy. I was impressed by Dr. Burzynski's ingenuity. He had found the answer to one of the biggest and most important questions of the 21st century. He did this just by comparing cancerous individuals and healthy individuals and finding a seemingly insignificant difference that turned out to be a huge discovery. I was suprised I had never heard of Dr. Burzynski before. Hs name should be in the news and all the medical journals, but because his new treatment would cost the FDA and PhRMA money, they try to keep his treatment under wraps. If I had a friend or family member diagnosed with cancer, I would definitely recommend Dr. Burzynski's treatment. I have seen what other so-called "treatments" can do to someone. What kind of cancer treatment actually gives you a different type of cancer? I can only hope that Burzynski's treatment can eventually get to everyone who needs it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Come on Zach!! Work harder. It is always quantity, not quality!

      Delete
  8. I definitely found this video to be very interesting. Just the fact that another method besides the commonly practiced chemotherapy, claiming to be producing a better survival rate against cancer than chemotherapy itself, was eye-opening. I was baffled that such a method, with the use of antineoplastons (peptides not present in cancer-patients), claimed to be more successful yet had not been funded by government funds since its introduction by Dr. Burzynski, has not become the more widely known or popularly recommended to many cancer-patients, and has still not successfully won against several judicial trials with the FDA. The video seemed extremely biased, favoring Burzynski and the antineoplaston method in all aspects and did not bring to light many of the counterclaims made by the FDA. Just based on the video, I would believe that it is true because it is so persuasive and seems to make Dr. Burnzynski and his method seem undoubtedly right. However, after I looked him up and his method for just a little bit, it seems like his method is not all the video claims it to be. So, I would not believe this method. Based on just watching the video, I would want to recommend it to people that have cancer, but I would not mainly because I do not know the other side to the story. This video is just one source, and many other ones need to be considered as well. I probably have never heard of Burnzynski because I, thankfully, have not had many of my family or friends experience cancer. Also, because Burnzynski's neoplaston method has been controversial, which is another reason why I probably haven't heard about it before.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I was very surprised by the video. I had never heard of this gyu before the video and now I wonder why. What I don't understand is why the FDA keeps trying to say that his druf is "unethical" and "illegal". His drug is woking and his patients are surviving. I do believe that what DR. Burzynski is saying is true because I saw the proof through the living patients. Most of the patients have been in remission for years and they did not experience the traumatic problems that chemo caused. I did a little research and I found out that even though it has been years and the FDA has nothing to say that the drug is not working properly, the drug has still not been administered to the public. Thhe current situation is that the drug approval process is in stage 3. What I find ridiculus is tha the FDA is trying to prosecute this doctor, whose only goal is too help severe cancer patient. He is not killing the patients since they are people whose doctors have said are going to die anyway. Also I feel like the government is violating the people's rights because they (the people) should be able to decide what kind of treatment they want to get. I think that it is cool that Dr. Burzynsky was able to find that new stain of peptide that no one else had found. It proves that he has been dedicated and wrking hard to find that cure. I think this is case of the hurt Amrican government, the irony is that they say they are for the people yet by trying to halt the production of antiplastons they are taking away some peoples only chance of living. The American government fears that if they release this drug they will be getting rid of many doctors and the income they get from Pharma, what they don't understand is what they could gain from this drug. Imgine how much money the US would get if they were the only one with the cure to cancer, they could sell the solution to other countries. In conclusion, I fel that what the FDA and the American government are doing is not only violating Dr. Burzynski's rights, but also the rights of the Amrican people.

    ReplyDelete
  10. (oops I posted wrong, how do I do internet?) I'm not to sure exactly. While the video was indeed true (I had to make sure if this wasn't a really long infomercial), The FDA is not all about cancer. They do some other good things too. So while they were slightly harsh on the FDA, what they wasted money on in the trials against Dr. Burzynski, that could have potentially been used for better and useful projects. I think that several people in high places are selfish pricks who care nothing for the health of others because they live in their world and demand the highest profit. Because Dr. Burzynski doesn't bring home the camels (or whatever they say in America), they won't use his research to save countless lives. Later in the video, the companies had the audacity to research the antiplastons or however you spell it (spell check is mean) with no regard to the good doctors patents. So yeah I'm mad, but so mad I would go put pictures of cats all over the FDA's head office with gorilla glue and duct tape. Of course, this is a biology class, and to be honest (oh god did I just type a TBH), the fact that our body has these antiplastons to regulate cancerous growths is pretty amazing in itself. Then again, when you think about all the functions any multicellular organism goes through on a day to day basis, that's pretty awesome too.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I really enjoyed watching this film, I don’t know if it was because we actually got to watch a movie two days in a row in class or if it was the actual film itself…anyways the facts that stood out to me were that although Burzynski’s methods were proven to work more times than did the American Cancer Society people (or whatever it was, I forgot the name), most of the money were going to the other people. In fact pretty much all of it was going to them compared to the very little money that went to Burzynski even though Burzynski’s methods are clearly better, because he actually cured the cancer rather than emitting a whole bunch of radiation that actually harmed the patient too. Also he’s polish and so is my family doctor…and Peter. Just saying. I have never heard of this guy before probably because of the very little credit he actually gets compared to how much he actually deserves. He deserves much more than he really gets considering the fact that he’s done a lot more than most people. I do believe him because his results are proven to work, so why wouldn’t you trust him? I would recommend his treatment center for someone that I know has cancer because instead of going to one of those radiation places that actually harms you, you can go to his place and cure the cancer. For example, I remember in the film that part where that one child had a type of cancer, and his/her parent tried that radiation thing, then when the doctors told his/her parents that he/she only had a certain time left to live because the radiation would no longer work, his/her parents did some research and found Dr. Burzynski, and went to him. Burzynski cured the cancer, but the child still died because the radiation damages the child’s brain. But he did NOT die because of the cancer, they autopsied him and found he was free of his cancer at the time of his death.
    I win.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Gabbie Griffith:
    I found the Burzynski video to be both informative and sickening. Although I was thrilled to realize there was a more effective, less toxic method to cancer treatment, I was repulsed by the fact that it was unavailable to the public after so many years of positive results. The idea that the FDA would purposely attack a doctor whose findings could result in astronomical leaps in cancer research and treatment is beyond me. I found it amusing that the trials undergone by Burzynski were based not on whether or not the drug was effective in treating cancer, but rather on the fact that Burzynski may or may not have gone through the proper procedures and loopholes in order to treat his patients and distribute his medicine. I found it most shocking that in cases of brainstem glioma the non-toxic, antineoplastons produced a 25% survival rate while the toxic radiation and chemotherapy produced only a 9% survival rate. With such a large discrepancy in cure rates I would imagine the National Cancer Institute and FDA would have made a quicker leap towards allowing clinical trials of the treatment. However, despite the corrupt society portrayed in the video, I found the support Burzynski received from his patients during his trials heartwarming. I would recommend this treatment to anyone with an aggressive tumor, in which chemo and radiation have been proven to produce few positive results. I believe Burzynski’s treatment will shift our focus to more non-toxic approaches to solving the cancer puzzle. The idea of a treatment can use natural compounds such as peptide strands found in the bodies of healthy individuals and use them to target gene expression in oncogenes is truly amazing, and creates a new path for which epigenetic research can travel.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Okay...So I enjoyed the video! It was so cool to see someone not even from the United States pretty much (kind of) find a cure for cancer! And to all of those people that he helped and saved is amazing! I think it is EXTREMELY STUPID that he was convicted of 75 counts of something dumb and then sued for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, deceptive trade and conspiracy. I was like uhh....WHAT?!? Seriously, they have got be joking! He saved how many people's lives and you are going to sue because you're jealous that they didn't find it first! I would think that the FDA and Pharma would totally be on his side and support his clinical studies/trials and back him 100% but they opposed him as well as the federal government, it surprised me! I didn't like it one bit!! And he helped people ranging from babies to older people! It just makes me all flustered just talking about it!

    ReplyDelete
  14. DaQuan Sanders

    So I found this video to be very informative and eye opening. I did not know that there was a less toxic and safer way to help cure cancer. The fact is that Burzynski's method seems to be a better and more effective way to help combat cancer. The reason why he probably is not getting the credit that he deserves is because billions of dollars have been poured into other cancer research programs and here he comes with this revolutionary alternative way to fight cancer and he did it with significantly less funding. It would be very cost worthy to change the way modern cancer research and the FDA might not want to make that change. The fear of replacing all of there funds could also be a reason why we have never heard of him. I do believe him and we all should believe him because he has a visible paper trail that we can all trace and time and time again his results seem to be very accurate. I would put a loved one in his care because he has proven that his way is effective and going with his therapy there are very little if any side effects.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The video was good and very informative. I was appalled about how the FDA was so persistent on shutting him down. Made me think of why would they do something like that, and I came to the conclusion that perhaps due to the fact they needed to test new chemicals and stuff that they needed volunteers. BUT nobody readily volunteers to a highly unknown chemical that could kill them, and by scaring people with all this "you only have __ time to live" would push them to agree to the new treatment and no bad repercussions would occur if the patient/"volunteers" were to die. On the other hand, Burzynski/Brozynski was doing an unprecedentedly good job and may have caused a fear in the FDA that he might take all of the "volunteers" away, so they tried to close him down with every petty thing they could find hoping for a metaphor such as "Using pebbles to kill a giant." Also there was all the behind the back talk, I didn't quite understand why the other companies would delve so deeply into the research of the compound that starts with "P," when Burzynski had blatantly told them that it didn't work (for a group of smart scientists, that wasn't too smart). That's all I have to say about that. Oh wait, one more thing, we didn't finish the video and that one lady looked like she had a really bad case of bad acting.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The Burzynski film had an obvious goal from the very beginning which was to antagonize the FDA and anyone who opposed Dr.Burzynski's practices. The film only showed the perspective of Burzynski and how antineoplastons were the "perfect" cancer treatment opposing chemotheorpy with no side effects. These results seemed too unrealistic to many doctors and this may be the reason for rejecting Burzynski's research rather than pure greed of preventing Burzynski's success and stealing their patients. Antineoplastons seem to be a revolutionary drug yet its popularity has probably been hampered by issues with the FDA.
    With multiple lawsuits and only one failed prosecution, it seemed the FDA had multiple reasons to attack Burzynski yet the film only addressed illegal transportation of antineoplastons. The accusations toward the government and medical examiners on the issue of money may have some truth where the legalization of Burzynski's antineoplastons could potentially obsolete dangerous chemotheorpy. With so much bias, I cannot tell whether antineoplastons are the perfect cancer treatment or are just a short term tumor reducer with long term effects.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I found the Burzynski documentary exceedingly interesting, not for medical aspect of it, but the ethical and philosophical aspects. To most people, the aspect of a revolutionary cancer treatment, with high success rate and no known adverse causes, would be a manna to immediately research and perfect. However, chemotherapy is a large source of income for the FDA, through large medical and pharmaceutical companies. Commercialism obviously rules modern medicine, and thus, it is not suprising that few people have heard of Dr. Burzynski, or that he is having difficulty pursuing his research. While the film was biased in favor of Dr. Burzynski, it also relayed numerous facts supporting that him use of antineoplastons is safe and effective. Data reports that antineoplaston therapy is effective roughly 25% of the time, as apposed to chemotherapy's 0.9%. This data is obviously slightly spewed, as Burzynski had a much smaller sample group. In regard to whether I would recommend this treatment to someone with cancer: yes. The treatment has no known adverse effects, and the worst-case scenario is a painless death.

    P.S.:Luke's comment is by far the best.

    ReplyDelete
  18. My initial reaction to the video was just as the majority of the class has responded: I was disgusted at the idea that the FDA would go to such lengths to gain an economic advantage over one man. However, upon second thought, something just doesn't seem quite right to me. Call me ignorant, but I have doubts as to the telling of the story. There is no argument that the FDA is somewhat ridiculous in their arguements (they seem to be grasping at straws in many of their cases, especially the 1985 and 1995 cases) and I agree that there is probably some alternative motivation, i.e. control of the cancer money, to their claims, but I cannot help to wonder if the entire story is being told in this video. Granted, the statistics do not lie. Like the judge said, the arguement is not whether or not the antineoplaston treatment is credibile (the 25% remission rate for antineoplastons versus the 0.9% for chemotherapy/radiation alone-I believe they said-is an incredible difference, priceless for those lives that were saved) which it obviously is-the arguement lies in whether or not Burzynski is doing this credibly, so to speak. I just can't help but wonder why the FDA is wasting so much time and effort-their blood, sweat, and tears-on chasing after this man and his patent. Is there some classified information that isn't avaliable to the public that is the underlying reason for all this fuss? Or, if the FDA is really only doing this to keep Burzynski from a "medical monopoly" so to speak, is it because the implications of such power can have such far-reaching effects that we may not fully realize? What would happen years down the line if one man-or one company-were to own the seemingly only "get-out-of-death-free card" for cancer patients? I say this not to sound like a heartless fool, but merely to play devil's advocate upon the emphasis that perhaps not all the details were told. What if Burzynski does pose a potential medical threat to the future of other medical companies-would the FDA then be justified in their legal attacks? Probably not, but further research may shed some light on the subject. This, however, is simply my opinion, and I definitely think that anyone with critical cancer should be allowed to pursue whatever means they wish to attempt to battle the death sentence. I only wonder if there is more to the story that we may not know, as far as the legal inquiry is concerned. As far as the antineoplaston treatment itself, I believe Dr. Burzynski is a medical pioneer, and I truly think that one day we will thank him for the research and lives he has saved.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I thought the video was interesting, if extremely one-sided. The FDA was demonized throughout while Burzynski was put on a pedestal. However, aside from the bias, I thought the film was really interesting. The idea that a *cure* (not a treatment) for some of the most aggressive types of cancer has existed for years and I'd never heard of it is a pretty ridiculous one. The film's moral implications were equally thought-provoking for me. The conflict of whether or not to ban a drug that is clearly saving lives because of concerns not regarding its safety or effectiveness is a very interesting one. Though the film, with its testimonies from cancer patients and their families, made a strong emotional argument for Burzynski, it still gave the impression that the whole story wasn't being told. Although the video made it difficult to draw educated conclusions, it is clear either way that Dr. Burzynski has made a very important step in cancer treatment and in the medical industry's dealings with the FDA.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Lilly Li
    In the video, Dr. B’s trial was portrayed as a heroic fight to FDA where FDA is the giant antagonist prosecuting the weak individual. The weak individual is Dr. B. It’s evident in the video that as a doctor, he has helped many patients, at least certainly emotionally. While there are many evidence presented in the video to support Dr. B., there are also gaps allow us to remain skeptical about Dr. B.’s success in treating his patients.
    The video presented statistics that show 25% of the patients treated by Dr. B. were cured and a relatively much lower percentile, 9% of the patients treated with chemo. Superficially, this is a strong evidence supporting Dr. B.’s treatment. However, the video never mentioned the population for the two percentages. Patients of Dr. B. might have already gone through some type of treatment before they went to seek Dr. B’s treatment. The previous treatment could have had a positive after effect on the patient. Yes, there are people who picked Dr. B.’s treatment before they picked any others, but these are the people that provide the strongest argument. These are also the people that are most willing to tell their story and stand against FDA. These people, are the people that the video makers are most desperate to invite to make the video with. The video makers might miss other patients that were unsuccessful, but they are definitely not going to miss these patients that can provide the most support to their overall argument for Dr. B.—(The treatment works and FDA is being selfish and prosecuting a sincere doctor!)
    When the patients were asked the same question, “could the effect been done by your last treatment?” The patients were bluntly positive about their belief on Dr. B’s treatment.

    I would love to type more but this is due in 4 mins, so I better post it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Peter Yupari

    After watching this video on Burzynski I have come to the conclusion that I believe his stance on antineoplastins. The evidence given is irrefutable and although he had been dragged to court over and over again each time it came to the point that the FDA had no case against Burzynski in the matter of whether or not his medicine worked. The video showed extensive cases of people who had been diagnosed with fatal cases of cancer such as brain cancer and many more. Although the video did state that antineoplastins only worked 25% of the time that was still much better than the chemotherapy rate of 9% survivability. This brings another point to mind that on top of having a better rate of curing tumors antineoplastins had no adverse effects on patients. Of course how could antineoplastins have an adverse affect as they naturally occur in the body, some people simply don't have as high a count of them as others do. If someone close to me was diagnosed with cancer of course this would be my first step because this is such a better alternative to chemotherapy. It is this rock solid evidence that has swayed me into believing Dr. Burzynski on the case of antineoplastins.
    Although this video does show a lot of irrefutable evidence in the favor of Dr. Burzynski it does not really show the point of view of the FDA which is to be expected in this style of video as it is meant to be biased in favor of Dr. Burzynski. In all the cases presented in court there was heavy emotional bias as it showed a mother crying over the miracle that her son was still alive. In fact for every patient brought as a witness they all agreed that indicting Dr. Burzynski was as bad as murdering those patients who were in need of antineoplastins.
    I would have written more but google erased my first draft of this comment so I had to rewrite it on the spot.

    ReplyDelete