Doctor Cures Cancer – Gets Charged By The FDA 5 Different Times For Regulation Violations

page: 3
147
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Got a link to the original research?

I'm sure that the big boys don't want their profits hurt but at a couple hundred grand for treatment Burzynski seems to be of the same mindset.

edit on 4-8-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Got a link to the original research?

I'm sure that the big boys don't want their profits hurt but at a couple hundred grand for treatment Burzynski seems to be of the same mindset.

edit on 4-8-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)


Unfortunately I'm not sure where to get his personal research.

The video covers some of his work.

If you really want to learn more, I'd suggest contacting his office.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
btw, great post Mnemeth!



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Visited the clinics website

Burzynski Clinic

Info on the web site includes "Phase III trials are expected to start in 2011." and "In September 2004, the FDA granted Orphan Drug designation for Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 for the treatment of Brainstem Glioma."

So he's one of them now.
edit on 4-8-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


Yeah, here is a list of his publications:

www.burzynskiclinic.com...



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
reply to post by daskakik
 


It's great that this topic is being mentioned again.
I watched the video when it was first released.

For those who seek additional evidence that antineoplaston is a legitimate treatment option, see my links below in another post. Antineoplaston treatment is currently in FDA trials, yet they continue to be stonewalled by the FDA. Below you can find links to clinical studies and NCI articles.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
We need to find out who is on the NCI board name and shame them. Then question them about their conspiracy to keep a treatment from those who are dying, This could have saved my Aunt I am fuming.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
the doctor seems motivated by greed if not then release the cocktail of drugs for everyone for free this dr will either disappear or have a freak accident either way this secret wont get out unless someone somehow convinces the dr that money is not the end all be all he needs to be convinced to serve the greater good of humanity is to release the drugs to everyone



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Burzynski had fraud and regulations violation charges brought against him for a very good reason - he was selling a medication without any proof it would work, and without any clinical evidence that it did what he claimed it did.

The FDA told him he could not sell antineoplastons until he had clinical evidence, which is why he is now performing clinical trials.

Why is it so hard for you guys to understand that medication manufacturers should have to prove their drug is efficacious before selling it?

If I tried to write a prescription for one of my patients for a drug that was untested, I would have the same charges filed against me as this man did. It has nothing to do with "big pharma" trying to squeeze him out, but rather than he was selling an untested, and potentially dangerous, drug. If big pharma wanted his new therapy banned...don't you think it would be banned?



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Cancer is a horrible disease. It doesn't "rot" you like some believe. What cancer is, are growths in the forms of tumors in most cases. What happens is part of your DNA goes nuts, and starts growing and reproducing mutated cells on its own, causing tumors. These tumors act like factories and make more of the damage cell mutations and if they hit your bloodstream you are in the deepest circle of hell in terms of being F**ked, because they will spread throughout your body like a california wildfire.

Honestly cancer is probably one of the more nastier diseases to die from and its painful and slow. Dying from heart attacks, strokes or even sepsis is a much more faster way to leave this world. I'd even take a car crash over cancer. Cancer lingers and drags on and leaves you dying from an enemy you cant fight, or wrap your hands around its throat and take it with you. Personally i'd rather die in battle spitting defiance in the faces of my enemies in a blaze of glory, this these diseases rob you of all dignity in death and they should be annihilated.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
Burzynski had fraud and regulations violation charges brought against him for a very good reason - he was selling a medication without any proof it would work, and without any clinical evidence that it did what he claimed it did.

The FDA told him he could not sell antineoplastons until he had clinical evidence, which is why he is now performing clinical trials.

Why is it so hard for you guys to understand that medication manufacturers should have to prove their drug is efficacious before selling it?

If I tried to write a prescription for one of my patients for a drug that was untested, I would have the same charges filed against me as this man did. It has nothing to do with "big pharma" trying to squeeze him out, but rather than he was selling an untested, and potentially dangerous, drug. If big pharma wanted his new therapy banned...don't you think it would be banned?


In the mid to late 1930's in Eureka Springs Arkansas, there was (what is now called the Crescent Hotel) a "cancer research hospital" that "Dr. Baker" (a fraud and most certainly no doctor) claimed he could cure cancer. This man would grind up watermelon seeds and add molasses and inject the solution into people claiming it cured them. Well it didnt, and hundreds of people died. He would lock them up in a wing of the "hospital" that he used for a mental ward because he didnt want anyone to find out he was lying his ass off, claming that the moans and screams other patients heard were mentally ill and insane. In truth, the moans and screams were from the patients whose "cure" didn't do a bloody thing for, in which he had them moved to the mental wing and said they were insane so no one would suspect he was a charlatan taking advantage of desperate people and ripping them off.

He was eventually caught and convicted of hundreds of accounts of fraud, he spent the rest of his life in prison. In the end he died from the same thing he claimed he could cure....lung cancer. Poetic Justice many would say.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


What a horrible story. It's good that someone like him went to prison, though regrettable that so many had to suffer from his awful "therapy".

As clunky, inefficient, and annoying as the FDA can occasionally be, I would rather have this system than the "wild west" sort of medicine that allows people like Burzynski and Baker to sell things without evidence, and then end up hurting people.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


You're back again spreading disinformation. Why are you expressing your comments as factual when clearly they are not? Please express your opinions as opinions. Maybe with IMPOHO at the end.


Burzynski had fraud and regulations violation charges brought against him for a very good reason - he was selling a medication without any proof it would work, and without any clinical evidence that it did what he claimed it did.


False.


The FDA told him he could not sell antineoplastons until he had clinical evidence, which is why he is now performing clinical trials.


False


Why is it so hard for you guys to understand that medication manufacturers should have to prove their drug is efficacious before selling it?


You obviously do not comprehend the discussion. How can an independent researcher prove a drugs effectiveness if they are not allowed to prove it through the proper means (hint: FDA). And when they eventually are permitted to begin clinical trials the stonewalling only continues.


If big pharma wanted his new therapy banned...don't you think it would be banned?

AND yes it is currently banned for use by the way.. Hmmmm



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   
off topic, wish i could figure out how to set my bloody avatar!



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   
So you're saying these Megathilic Medical Corporations Demand that people like this

decent Dr, who really can heal show the amount of proof they demand, while they

themselves don't even obey their own guidelines? do you know just how many people

have Died or been seriously Injured from their vaccines and Drugs, and now people

won't be able to sue them over it very soon in the future. That to me is a huge red flag.

They don't even have enough clinical testing on their own Drugs and most people who

are informed enough know that Drugs have mass amounts of chemicals and other things

that can seriously hurt a human being, they affect the thyroid gland, the liver, kidneys etc

etc. Syntheic drugs do not belong in the human body.



Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
Burzynski had fraud and regulations violation charges brought against him for a very good reason - he was selling a medication without any proof it would work, and without any clinical evidence that it did what he claimed it did.

The FDA told him he could not sell antineoplastons until he had clinical evidence, which is why he is now performing clinical trials.

Why is it so hard for you guys to understand that medication manufacturers should have to prove their drug is efficacious before selling it?

If I tried to write a prescription for one of my patients for a drug that was untested, I would have the same charges filed against me as this man did. It has nothing to do with "big pharma" trying to squeeze him out, but rather than he was selling an untested, and potentially dangerous, drug. If big pharma wanted his new therapy banned...don't you think it would be banned?



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
Burzynski had fraud and regulations violation charges brought against him for a very good reason - he was selling a medication without any proof it would work, and without any clinical evidence that it did what he claimed it did.

The FDA told him he could not sell antineoplastons until he had clinical evidence, which is why he is now performing clinical trials.

Why is it so hard for you guys to understand that medication manufacturers should have to prove their drug is efficacious before selling it?

If I tried to write a prescription for one of my patients for a drug that was untested, I would have the same charges filed against me as this man did. It has nothing to do with "big pharma" trying to squeeze him out, but rather than he was selling an untested, and potentially dangerous, drug. If big pharma wanted his new therapy banned...don't you think it would be banned?


Actually it is on record that he had proof that it worked. The FDA NCI trials purposely changed the dose and content to discredit the good Doctor this is on record. They then proceeded to plagiarize and re-patent the very formula they were prosecution him for,. The shoot themselves in the foot and were caught out when in their very patent they admit it is proven to cure bowel cancer etc. The whole conspiracy to steal the patent for the trillions it would generate and could potentially take from Chemo chem companies is on record and is clearly outlined in the video. You either have not watched the video and are a dis info agent or are just ignorant and regurgitating something you read on a website somewhere. Deny ignorance and welcome to ATS>



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by matito


Burzynski had fraud and regulations violation charges brought against him for a very good reason - he was selling a medication without any proof it would work, and without any clinical evidence that it did what he claimed it did.


False.


Actually, true. Here is the SOURCE.

You'll note that the charges filed were specifically for lack of evidence that patients were safe and benefiting from this therapy. He would only give the FDA and medical examiners PARTIAL access to SOME patient records.

Why is that, do you think? Why couldn't he just provide data?



The FDA told him he could not sell antineoplastons until he had clinical evidence, which is why he is now performing clinical trials.


False


Actually, true. Here is the SOURCE.

As you'll see, Burzynski has opened numerous clinical research trials. This is a required component for a drug to become FDA-approved as safe and beneficial.


You obviously do not comprehend the discussion. How can an independent researcher prove a drugs effectiveness if they are not allowed to prove it through the proper means (hint: FDA). And when they eventually are permitted to begin clinical trials the stonewalling only continues.


He WASN'T an independent researcher. He used NIH grants while at Baylor University to develop antineoplastons and only left the university when he wanted to sell them (it's incredibly difficult to sell anything that you researched with university dollars while working for a university).

Burznyski's own CV supports this, showing he worked at Baylor while researching these peptdies,



AND yes it is currently banned for use by the way.. Hmmmm


It's not banned. It's just not FDA-approved. In fact, prior to Burzynski's later regulation violations, he was allowed to sell the antineoplastons within Texas. He then decided to ignore the law and sell them to a man in Oregon, which is what brought more charges against him.

Now, I've provided verifiable sources for all of my information. Where are yours?



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shirak

Actually it is on record that he had proof that it worked.


Show me. I want a statiscally-sound clinical trial, not anecdotes.


They then proceeded to plagiarize and re-patent the very formula they were prosecution him for,. The shoot themselves in the foot and were caught out when in their very patent they admit it is proven to cure bowel cancer etc.


Source, please. A biased video isn't proof. I want something that is proven and verifiable, not just "some guy on a video said...".



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by awareness10
people like this decent Dr, who really can heal


Do you have any data that shows he can "heal", or are you just parroting what everyone else is telling you because it would make for a good story?


Do you know just how many people have Died or been seriously Injured from their vaccines and Drugs


Please, tell me how many. You seem pretty confident that these numbers are grossly disproportionate to the number of people who have used drugs and vaccines, so...tell me how many have died from these.


and now people won't be able to sue them over it very soon in the future


People sue doctors and drug companies all the time. What do you think all those class-action lawsuit commercials regarding different drugs are all about?


They don't even have enough clinical testing on their own Drugs


Yes, they do. And these clinical tests are available for doctors to read at their leisure. If I have a question about a drug, I can look at the study, who performed the study, and how convincing the study's data is. Why shouldn't Burzynski have to do the same?


they affect the thyroid gland, the liver, kidneys etc


Some have side effects like that, sure. Most of them don't. It's a matter of balancing strength and side effects. If you have a condition that is incredibly dangerous and requires powerful drugs, you're more likely to have more obvious side effects. However, if you simply have strep throat and just need amoxicillin, your risk of side effects is minimal.


Syntheic drugs do not belong in the human body


Most drugs are based on natural compounds, not synthetic. They are simply produced through synthetic processes because it's impractical to grow a forest of trees just to distill a single chemical found in it's bark (aspirin is the drug I'm talking about here).



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Great video......it is possible that this drug doesn't work as good as they are making it out...it seemed every time someone died on it it was from past radiation damage, but either way...it obviously has had great success. Makes you feel sick sometimes watching all these videos on how messed up we are for not putting out a cure when there is one.





new topics
top topics
 
147
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join