THE BURZYNSKI SAGA
What follows are articles from seven years' worth of The Cancer Chronicles on the trials
and tribulations of Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D., a Houston physician
and researcher.Here is an index of the topics covered below.
Early Victory (1989)
Dr. B. Faces U.S. Probe (1990)
Trials and Tribulations (1992)
A Letter to Morales (1992)
- A Patient's Son Speaks Out (1993)
- Interview with an Orthodox Nurse (1993)
Rep. Porter Speaks Out (1993)
Grand Jury on the Move (1994)
NCI Director Fails to Credit Dr. B. (1994)
Texas Raiders (1995)
Judge Restores Licens (1995)
Lesson from the Past (1995)
A Visit to Houston (1996)
From The Cancer Chronicles #3
©1989 by Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.
Stanislaw R. Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D. of Houston has won an important round
in his battle against the Aetna Life Insurance Company. An Illinois judge
has ruled that Aetna's attorneys overstepped their bounds by seeking confidential
records of patients from other insurers. He ordered them to pay over $11,000
in legal fees to Abady and Jaffe, the New York law firm that represents the
Aetna had originally sought such records as part of its $600,000 RICO
(Racketeering Influenced and Corruption Organizations Act) suit against
Burzynski, the discoverer of antineoplastons. The Wall Street Journal recently
called the RICO act "a horror" and a "Frankenstein's monster," adding,
"Only Congress has the power to kill the creature" (November 15, 1989).
If Aetna wins, it can collect three times this amount, plus legal costs,
effectively putting the clinic out of business. Grace Monaco is Aetna's
consultant on the case.
The present suit arose when the court twice refused to allow Aetna's attorneys
to see complete medical records of patients covered by other companies. It
did allow them to see some such records, provided that all private information
Frustrated by these restrictions, Aetna's attorneys "decided that it was
perfectly okay to go to these insurance companies directly...and seek information
from them," in the words of U.S. District Judge Michael Mihm. Aetna's attorneys,
Hinshaw and Culbertson, had a Springfield, Illinois clerk send subpoenas
to fellow insurance companies.
"It's a little hard for me to understand why legal issues would be assigned
to secretaries and clerks," the judge stated in his decision, October 13,
The other insurance companies thought they were facing "an official mandate
of the Court," said the judge. The result was that the attorneys received
private records of Dr. Burzynski's patients in disregard not just of the
judge's orders but of confidentiality. "I'm very troubled" by this situation,
the judge told the lawyers in a phone conference, calling their indifference
to his order "almost unconscionable."
Judge Mihm did not disqualify Aetna's attorneys from the case. But he ordered
them to pay Abady and Jaffe's fees in connection with this complaint. He
also barred Aetna from any use of this information and ordered the data
segregated. Judge Mihm's decision is the latest slap at the attorneys of
the billion dollar company.
From The Cancer Chronicles #6
©Autumn, 1990 by Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.
[INTERESTING IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT WAS TO COME--ED]
On July 2,  Stanislaw Burzynski, MD, PhD, developer of antineoplastons,
was called before the federal Grand Jury to answer questions about alleged
"mail fraud." "The investigation is centered not on the treatment's efficacy
but on how insurance is billed by Dr. Burzynski's staff," according to Le
Trombetta, director of public information for the Burzynski Research Institute.
It now appears the Grand Jury will actually indict "Dr. B." The Polish-born
scientist is already fighting a "racketeering" (RICO) suit brought by the
gigantic Aetna insurance company.
Antineoplastons are naturally occurring peptides (small proteins) found in
human blood and urine. Burzynski has used them to treat cancer since 1977.
In March, 1983 the FDA filed a lawsuit against him, alleging interstate shipment
of medicine. But U.S. District Court Judge McDonald ruled that Federal law
did not prohibit Burzynski from treating patients with antineoplastons within
Texas altough he could not ship them across state lines.
This was a setback for the FDA; soon another government agency, the US Attorneys
office, began a Grand Jury investigation. After some early activity this
investigation died down.
"In the meantime," says Trombetta, "in 1986, one of Dr. Burzynski's patients
sued their insurance company, Aetna, for payment of treatment. Dr. Burzynski
joined the suit and was then countersued by Aetna and charged with
On April 6 of this year Dr. B's lawyer moved to have Aetna's RICO case dismissed.
It was at this point that the Grand Jury investigation suddenly became active
again. "We have reason to suspect that Aetna has conspired with the government
in the current action against Dr. Burzynski," Trombetta said.
In June, Burzynski's attorneys, Abady & Jaffe, fought back with a
racketeering charge against Aetna, and "quackbuster" Grace Powers Monaco,
who has served as Aetna's consultant on their suit. They are hoping that
others who have been denied payments by the giant company will join the suit.
The same US Attorney, Henry Oncken, who brought the case against Dr. B. was
himself recently forced to resign because of his role in the growing savings
and loan (S & L) scandal. Eleven Houston attorneys sent a letter to Sen.
Phil Gramm complaining that Oncken was soft on big-time criminals. "There
seems so little being done to punish these mega-buck bandits," they wrote.
But his office made sure to subpoena Dr. B. the day before Oncken was forced
This trouble comes as Burzynski's scientific star is rising. The International
Journal of Tissue Reactions published a special supplement on
"Antineoplastons: Tissue Culture and Chemoprevention Studies". This peer-reviewed
journal has an editorial board with respected scientists from over a dozen
countries. The editor, A. Bertelli of Milan, has himself studied antineoplaston
A10. He observed "significant growth inhibition" on a human colon adenocarcinoma
cell line with no major side effects at all but the highest concentrations.
There is now intense interest in antineoplastons in Japan, China, Italy,
Poland, and other countries. Dr. B. was recently featured in a highly favorable
article in Oncology News, sponsored by Adria Laboratories.
In May a Houston federal judge ordered Transamerica Occidental Life
Insurance Co. to pay medical bills for a patient who received antineoplastons.
The patient benefited from the treatment, according to her attorney, but
died when she "stopped the treatment after she and her husband sold their
house to pay medical bills." The judge ruled that her bills were covered
because "they involved medical services made by a licensed physician."
The establishment is not trying to put Dr. B. out of business for being a
charlatan, but precisely because he is one of the most respected doctors
in the alternative field. He is the one who publishes most regularly in the
peer-reviewed literature and doggedly fights for FDA approval. This shows
that the quackbusters demand for peer-reviewed studies is a "red herring":
when you do publish, they go after you with double force....
From The Cancer Chronicles #12
[LITTLE DID WE KNOW HOW MANY OF HIS "TRIALS" WERE STILL IN THE FUTURE--ED]
© October, 1992 by Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.
In October, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) is scheduled to conduct clinical
trials with Dr. S. R. Burzynski's antineoplastons. Antineoplastons are peptides
which Burzynski claims constitute a biochemical defense system in the body.
NCI has announced that several medical institutions will take part in the
trial. Impetus came from an NCI trip last fall, in which site visitors concluded
that Burzynski's treatment had indeed successfully shrunk 7 cases of brain
"We are trying to ascertain in a scientific way," NCI said, "the real value
of antineoplastons. Are they of benefit to cancer patients?" There will be
4 independent trials, each involving 2530 people with different types
of brain tumors.
AETNA FIZZLES: In late March, Aetna's five year suit against Burzynski was
thrown out of court. This fierce struggle with the insurance giant began
in 1986 when the husband of a Burzynski patient sued Aetna for payment of
treatment. When Burzynski joined the suit, he was promptly countersued by
The fight was bitter and very expensive. When "Dr. B." as he is called got
permission in 1989 to test his compounds in people, Aetna asked FDA to revoke
this hard-won IND. Aetna also allegedly sent a mass mailing to fellow insurance
companies, asking them to no longer reimburse Burzynski's patients.
On March 31, US District Court Judge Kenneth Hoyt threw out Aetna's suit,
and simultaneously the patient's original claim.
EMPRISE SURPRISE: When this newsletter began publishing, the most ominous
cloud on the horizon was Emprise, Inc., an organization headed by Grace Powers
Monaco, Esq., a Washington attorney, who not only aided Aetna in its Burzynski
suit but won an NCI grant to compile a data base on `questionable' therapies.
After running into a wall of opposition from health activists, and the imminent
failure of the Aetna suit, Emprise folded. This spring Monaco announced that
Emprise had dissolved last December. Monaco says she has "semi-retired from
the practice of law" and is merely consulting on cancer prevention. She remains
affiliated with the Candlelighters Childhood Cancer Foundation.
THE JAMA GAME: On June 3, 1992, the Journal of the American Medical Association
launched a full-scale attack with an article on Burzynski by Saul Green,
PhD, entitled "AntineoplastonsAn Unproved Cancer Therapy." JAMA
didn't mention that Green was scientific director of Emprise, involved in
the Aetna suit. Burzynski has submitted a rebuttal to JAMA with 137 references.
[THEY NEVER PUBLISHED IT, ED.]
From The Cancer Chronicles #13
© December 1992 by Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.
On Wednesday, September 16, 1992, the following resolution was introduced
by Ralph W. Moss, PhD, editor of this newsletter, at a special forum immediately
after the NIH meeting [the "Chantilly meeting that effectively launched the
Office of Alternative Medicine, ed.].
The resolution was seconded by Dr. Carlton Hazelwood, a professor at the
Baylor College of Medicine, and approved unanimously by over 100 attendees
at the NIH meeting:
"We, the individual members of the assembled Advisory Committee of the
office of alternative medicine within the National Institutes of Health (NIH),
call on you, the Attorney General of the state of Texas, to suspend all legal
actions now underway by the state of Texas and the Texas
Medical Licensure Board while the NIH is conducting the scientific evaluation
of the antineoplaston therapy of Stanislaw Burzynski, MD, PhD."
From The Cancer Chronicles #14
© Feb. 1993 by Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.
[DEAN MOUSCHER HAS SINCE BECOME THE VERY ARTICULATE DIRECTOR OF PATIENT RELATIONS
AT THE BURZYNSKI RESEARCH INSTITUTE. HIS FATHER LIVED ONE YEAR PAST THE
PREDICTIONS OF HIS CONVENTIONAL DOCTORS ON BURZYNSKI'S TREATMENT.--ED]
Dean Mouscher (Compuserve's Cancer Forum, CIS #70401,1236) spent many months
searching for a treatment for his father's brain cancer. He finally settled
on Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski's peptide treatment, antineoplastons. In November,
Dean sent this letter to Texas Attorney General Dan Morales, who in engaged
in efforts threatening to take away Dr. Burzynski's medical license. In early
January, the elder Mouscher's exam again showed that his tumors had stopped
growing and had shrunk a little, and his neurological functioning was better.
I understand that you are currently engaged in efforts to prevent Dr. Burzynski
in Houston from practicing medicine. I understand and appreciate your desire
to protect the public from fraud and I am certain you would be interested
in hearing any valid information about him.
I investigated Dr. Burzynski for my father, who is suffering from glioblastoma
multiforme, a viciously aggressive brain tumor that rarely responds to radiation
or chemotherapy, and then only briefly. It is basically a death sentence....[I
spoke to] Dr. Patronas, an NCI neuroradiologist with 20 years experience,
whose knowledge of Dr. Burzynski came not from rumors but from a site visit
during which he audited a number of cases. He told me that he believes in
Burzynski's results, that he found the evidence "extremely impressive," and
that "in 20 years in this business I haven't seen anything that looks so
But the most impressive evidence...is my father himself. A scan taken on
11/9/92 shows that the tumors have stopped growing and that there is some
necrosis [tissue death] within two of the three tumors. That is the opinion
not only of Dr. Burzynski, but also of Dr. Michael Gorey, the radiologist
at Evanston Hospital here. And in fact, my father's neurological
conditionwhich had been declining rapidlyseems little changed
since he began taking Dr. Burzynski's antineoplastons.
I would be happy to send the radiology reports at your request. I know that
many in the medical establishment are hostile to Dr. Burzynski. We should
keep in mind how often the medical establishment has been proven wrong....Mr.
Morales, I am sure that you have only the public's interest at heart. I urge
you to consider the possibility that Dr. Burzynski's treatment is in fact
I urge you to keep in mind the very real possibility that had your efforts
to prevent him from treating patients succeeded, my father might be dead...."
AN ORTHODOX NURSE SPEAKS CANDIDLY:
"EVERYONE AROUND HERE ACCEPTS THAT HE'S A QUACK"
Dean Mouscher also posted the following conversation he had with a
"protocol nurse" about another treatment, called TRA, coincidentally developed
Dean: What have your results been with TRA?
Nurse: We don't know yet, we've been doing it for too short a time and the
results haven't been tabulated.
Dean: How long have you been doing it?
Nurse: A year.
Dean: Is that too short a time to get a feel for whether it's working
or not? These tumors progress pretty quickly. I would think a year would
be enough to see if you had any results or not.
Nurse: Well, like I told you, the results haven't been tabulated yet, so
we don't know if it represents an improvement or not.
Dean: There haven't been any spectacular results?
Nurse (defensively): No, no spectacular results, but it hasn't worked any
worse than anything else.
[Dean adds: That's easy to believe, since everything else is essentially
Dean: Have you heard of a guy by the name of Burzynski who apparently
practices in Houston?
Nurse: Hah! He's a quack.
Dean: Why do you say that?
Nurse (slightly stunned and offended that he questioned her blanket statement):
Well, I told you he's from Houston, and everybody around here pretty much
accepts that he's a quack. He derives his treatment from urine.
Dean adds: I couldn't help shaking my head again at this very interesting
mentality. Even if Burzynski never cured anyone, why is he any more of a
quack than they are? After all, they themselves have never been able to help
anyone with a glioblastoma multiforme. And yet they're so self-important
with their little projects, spending years and who knows how much money seeing
if new drug XYZ prolongs survival from 4.3 to 4.7 months."
From The Cancer Chronicles #14
© Feb. 1993 by Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.
Last April , Rep. John E. Porter (R-IL) sent the following letter to
Texas Governor Ann Richards, concerning the case of Dr. S.R. Burzynski...
"I am writing to convey my concern over the Texas Department of Health's
attempt to prevent the Burzynski Research Institute (BRI) from using
antineoplastons on its patients. The Texas Medical Practices Act recognized
an appropriate role of experimental drugs and drug combinations in the treatment
of terminal diseases.
"Section 5.09 of this Act states: `a physician licensed to practice medicine
under this Act may supply patients with any drugs, remedies, or clinical
supplies as are necessary to meet the patients' immediate needs.' Seeking
a permanent injunction against BRI's antineoplaston therapy is in direct
conflict with this provision.
"Prominent oncologists at leading cancer centers across the country have
examined the records of BRI's patients and acknowledge that the antineoplaston
therapy is having beneficial effects. If successful in its lawsuit against
BRI, the state of Texas will deny these patients the only treatment which
as having any positive effect. In my opinion, this would be a tragedy."
"While still experimental, antineoplastons are poised to enter the FDA approval
process. I urge you to delay any further action against BRI..."
GRAND JURY ON THE MOVE
BURZYNSKI WINS IN COURTS
BUT STRUGGLE HEATS UP
From The Cancer Chronicles #21
© May 1994 by Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.
On March 10, Stanislaw R. Burzynski, MD, PhD, won a major victory in his
battle to keep practicing medicine in the state of Texas. An administrative
law judge ruled that the former Baylor College of Medicine researcher can
continue to treat cancer and AIDS patients in his Houston clinic with his
new class of non-toxic medicines called antineoplastons. This ruling came
despite another Texas law that supposedly prohibits people from distributing
or prescribing drugs that have not yet been approved by the FDA. The
judge's ruling had been requested by the State Board of Medical Examiners.
But Judge Earl A. Corbitt upset their plans. He ruled that the Texas Medical
Practices Act allows physicians to prescribe "any drug" to minister to the
immediate needs of their patients. This right, he said, takes precedence
over the general provisions of the Texas Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act, which
allegedly make it a crime to manufacture, distribute, or prescribe drugs
not approved by the FDA. "The decision," says Dr. B.'s victorious attorney,
Richard Jaffe, "strikes a significant blow for freedom of choice."
Corbitt's decision will stand unless the board changes it for matters of
"The decision is life-saving for many of Dr. Burzynski's advanced cancer
and AIDS patients," said Jaffe. "But it is also an important precedent for
all complementary health practitioners who use treatments and supplements
that have not yet received FDA approval."
BURZYNSKI TO BE INDICTED? The ink was hardly dry on this historic ruling, however, when the U.S.
Attorney's office in Houston stepped up its harassment. There is a real
possibility that Burzynski will be indicted by the U.S. government in the
For almost 10 years, Burzynski has been investigated by various U.S. Attorneys
and Grand Juries in Houston. Their presumption has been that he defrauds
insurance companies by inducing their clients to take a useless cancer remedy.
In addition, they allege that he ships his medicines across state lines,
in contravention of FDA regulations.
Over the years, at least five different Grand Juries, three consecutive U.S.
attorneys, and five assistant U.S. attorneys have been involved in this vendetta.
Burzynski employees and family members have repeatedly been called to testify.
Dr. B. himself has been called twice. Yet these investigators have never
been successful, except in wasting time and energy. In fact, after Burzynski
testified three years ago, the result was not an indictment, but a pink slip
for U.S. Assistant Attorney, Philip Hilder.
During Easter/Passover week this year, however, there was stepped-up activity.
"What is going on now seems to be a desperate last ditch effort to produce
an indictment," says the Houston attorney. Numerous current and former employees
are again being subpoenaed to testify.
A USELESS REMEDY? Are antineoplastons really a "useless cancer remedy"? Not according to NCI, which conducted a site visit in 9/91 that validated the effectiveness of
these drugs in some cases. In fact, the OAM/NIH has now arranged for clinical
trials at Sloan-Kettering, the Mayo Clinic, and NCI itself. And not according
to hundreds of Dr. B's devoted patients.
It is also well known that Burzynski has a strict company policy that prohibits
the shipment of antineoplastons across state lines. However, cancer and AIDS
patients are legally allowed to take home a three months' supply of medicine
for their own use, and frequently do so. Word about antineoplastons is spreading
in this way.
In late April, the U.S. Attorney's office launched an attack on one of Dr.
B's most prominent local supporters, the Harris County Attorney, Mike Driscoll,
who is also a board member of the Burzynski Research Institute. Burzynski
had treated Driscoll's wife, Betty Rose, who had cancer. The Grand Jury
subpoenaed copies of the last 10 years of Driscoll's campaign records, which
showed that Dr. B. made donations of about $1,000 per year to Driscoll's
campaign. There was no crime or impropriety in this, however.
"Many folks on the local political scene are well aware of Driscoll's devotion
to his late wife during her illness," wrote the Houston Business Journal,
"and his appreciation for Dr. Burzynski's efforts to save her." It called
the attempt to insinuate corruption "ham-handed" (4/2). In fact, these reports
are part of the public records and can be readily obtained by anyone, according
to the Houston Post (4/20). So why all the grandstanding? Driscoll believes
it is "to discredit him in connection with grand jury testimony about Dr.
According to attorney Jaffe "Several grand jurors asked him what he thought
of Burzynski, and why. He told them that he basically believes Dr. Burzynski
is helping people, saving lives, and was a good man" (Houston Insider, 4/20/94).
In the 1980s, the Aetna Insurance Co. sued Burzynski for fraud. This case
was eventually thrown out of court, but not before Burzynski countersued
for over $100 million. That suit is still alive. Some observers believe that
Aetna is behind the investigation. At the very least, Aetna would be the
main beneficiary of the indictment. In fact, the government's case against
Burzynski is virtually identical to the old Aetna suit.
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT:
NCI DIRECTOR FAILS TO CREDIT BURZYNSKI'S DISCOVERY
From The Cancer Chronicles #23
© Sept. 1994 by Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.
This summer, Dr. Samuel Broder, MD, director of the National Cancer Institute
(NCI), co-authored an article in a major medical journal containing optimistic
claims about a new approach to cancer treatment.
But the whole story is not told in Dr. Broder's article. For he fails to
mention the fact that in part this new treatment is based on the life work
of an unconventional Houston physician, Stanislaw R. Burzynski, MD, PhD.
The article in question appeared June 3 in the Journal of the American Medical
Association (1994; 271:1693-1695). It was co-authored by the NCI director
and his colleague, Judith E. Karp, MD. They reviewed some recent progress
in controlling the expression of so-called ras-oncogenes (growth-regulating
genes) and "ras-encoded proteins" in influencing the outcome of various human
cancer. Ras genes, similar to animal viruses, were first discovered in human
cancers in 1982 (Der CJ et al. PNAS 1982;79:3637). This is widely considered
a major breakthrough in understanding the genetics of cancer.
Ras oncogenes make some of the proteins that are responsible for regulating
the health and appearance of the proteins that are found on the surfaces
of cells. When these genes mutate, and their protein products become abnormal
(become "overexpressed or deranged" is the technical terminology), they can
"serve as critical driving forces in the evolution of many...cancers," wrote
Drs. Karp and Broder.
By blocking such cell-surface changes, scientists hope to "provide a powerful
molecular target for therapy and prevention of a broad spectrum of malignant
neoplasms." including those of the colon, pancreas, prostate, bladder, lung,
brain, and possibly also breast cancer.
A TALE OF THREE AGENTS: The NCI scientists then cite three new investigational agents that seem able to help preserve normal cell membrane structures and functions. These thre eare the common anti-cholesterol drug, lovastatin; limonene (or common citrus oil, found in lemons, dill, etc.); and something called phenylacetate. We
needn't discuss the first two here. The third, phenylacetate, targets a particular site on the cell surface, the scientists write, and thereby inhibits
ras-driven cancerous cell growth. In addition, it "could theoretically exert
an antitumor effect, even in the absence of ras abnormality." It should be
noted that of the three agents, only phenylacetate naturally occurs in the
human body; the other two are foreign substances.
"Some of these approaches," Drs. Broder and Karp say, "could yield new cancer
prevention strategies.... These agents are presently in clinical development
for prostate cancer and glioblastoma multiforme" and "several important clinical
studies are under way."
A quick check of the footnotes reveals that some of the work in question
is being done by Dvorit Samid, PhD, herself presently at NCI (J Clin Invest
1993; 91:2288-2295). Dr. Samid is currently involved in the NCI clinical
trial of phenylacetate as a new treatment for brain cancer.
SEPARATING THE MEDICINE FROM THE MAN: This article immediately set off bells in the alternative community. With the oblique reference to Dr. Samid, Drs. Karp and Broder reveal the hidden sources of their ideas. For this work on phenylacetate is derived from the work of the beleaguered Dr. Burzynski. Yet there is no mention of Burzynski in Broder's account.
The real story is this: In 1988, at the urging of a prominent cancer activist
named Bob DeBragga, Dr. Samid began investigating the work of Dr. Burzynski,
who was one of DeBragga's doctors. Samid was then of the Uniformed Services
University of Health in Bethesda, MD. She began to experiment with synthetic
analogs of the urine-derived antineoplastons, and particularly with the one
In Oncology News (7-8/90), she is quoted as saying, "AS2-1 profoundly inhibits
oncogene expression and the proliferation of malignant cells without exhibiting
any toxicity toward normal cells...The Antineoplaston[s] can actually induce
terminal differentiation [i.e., reversing malignancy]....Such a dramatic
phenomenon is seldom seen." Phenylacetate, as she learned from Dr. Burzynski,
is the main ingredient of AS2-1. While her earlier articles bore no mention
of this intellectual debt, in her most recent paper, she says, she is able
to credit Burzynski as a source of her work.
"Basically," Burzynski says, "through the elucidation of the mechanism of
action of ras-oncogenes, my theory of the Biochemical Defense System has
been proven, as far as the first ingredient, phenylacetate, is concerned.
The human body can defend itself against cancerous growth by using this body
substance, phenylacetate, which interferes with the information processing
in ras-oncogene pathways."
Ironically, Burzynski remains under fierce attack by state regulators, especially
the Texas Board of Medical Examiners. Broder could greatly help the situation
by properly acknowledging the parentage of his own ideas. Cancer history
is replete with examples of ideas taken, unacknowledged, from unconventional
scientists. The cases of Beard, Gerson, and Ivy come to mind. We would hate
to think that this article by Drs. Broder and Karp is yet another `rip off'
of an alternative pioneer by the cancer establishment. At NCI, this process
is sometimes euphemistically called "separating the medicine from the man."
Rest assured: the alternative health movement will never stand for this,
and is in a position today to fight so that simple justice is done.
TEXAS RAIDERS STRIKE AGAIN
FDA AND POSTAL AGENTS
RAID BURZYNSKI CLINIC
From The Cancer Chronicles #27
© May 1995 by Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.
On Friday, 3/24/95, the Burzynski Research Institute (BRI) in Houston, TX
was raided by seven agents of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and
the US Postal Service. The government agents herded BRI employees into a
back room and then attempted to seize the medical records of 17 patients.
Only 9 names corresponded to active Burzynski patients. The FDA also took
the names and phone numbers of all current clinic patients.
Off the record, FDA employees have told us that such a raid had to have been
planned far in advance. But, even so, it may have been triggered by two media
events. In mid-March, Stanislaw R. Burzynski, MD, PhD, director of the clinic,
had appeared on the "Eye on America" segment of the CBS Evening News. The
response to this report was so overwhelming that Burzynski and three of his
patients were asked to appear on the CBS This Morning show on March 24.
Dr. Burzynski spoke about his antineoplaston treatment for cancer, small
peptides of natural origin that he says are part of a Biochemical Defense
System in the body. The patients presented their compelling stories. Two
had had non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and one had had brain cancer. All claimed
to be in complete, long-term remission on the treatment and spoke forcefully
and eloquently about their experiences. Ironically, in light of what was
about to happen, Burzynski mentioned several times that he would treat free
of charge patients who enrolled in his FDA-approved trials.
Millions of people saw this show, and the response was immediate, positive,
and intense. There were over 2,000 phone calls to the Burzynski Research
Institute (BRI) that day and on subsequent days. For a moment, it seemed
as if the long, dark night of neglect of this remarkable work was over.
PREMATURE CELEBRATION: At post-broadcast celebrations, everyone agreed that the CBS shows had raised public awareness of Dr. B.'s concept of cancer therapy to a new level. At around 2 p.m., Dr. and Mrs. Burzynski got on a plane from New York to Houston.
Fifteen minutes after they were in the air, the FDA obtained a Search and
Seizure Warrant from U.S. Magistrate Frances H. Stacy. Then, just past 5
p.m., after Dr. B.'s lawyer, Rick Jaffe, had left his office, the federal
agents entered BRI's modern premises. Office manager Barbara Tomaszewski
asked them to wait until she could contact Mr. Jaffe. But they told her that
if she didn't allow them to search for the documents they wanted then they
would do it by force.
In many ways, of course, the memory of the Jonathan Wright clinic raid on
5/6/92 hung over this action (CC #12). A surreptitiously taken videotape
of the Wright raid has been shown all over the world. This time FDA refused
to allow staff to take pictures of the action.
Also, they arrived after 5 p.m.: a midday raid of Burzynski in 1985 had led
to patient outrage and the formation of a patient rights legal action fund
to defend Dr. B. But this time they still took a nurse away from the cancer
patient she was treating. They then systematically began their search and
seizure operation, which continued until around 11:30 p.m.
What did they want? There is a 1983 consent decree that allows Burzynski
to treat patients in Texas, but not to routinely ship medicines out of state.
The main issue seemed to be the purported shipment of medicine across the
Texas state line. We say "seems" since the charges have been sealed, and
FDA representatives refuse to comment or meet with members of the Alternative
Medicine Program Advisory Council (AMPAC).
Burzynski is adamant that he does not ship the medicines out-of-state without
the explicit permission of FDA. There is a longstanding policy at BRI that
any employee will be immediately terminated if he or she does so. Nevertheless,
it is impossible to monitor the activities of every employee and every patient.
ARRIVING HOME: Arriving home, Dr. B. was alerted to the raid in progress at his clinic.
Rushing there, he found it swarming with agents going through his papers
and pecking away at his computers. They reluctantly allowed him to make copies
of the files they were taking, because otherwise he could not treat his active
patients. BRI's Custodian of Records was subpoenaed to testify on 4/17/95
before a Grand Jury investigating the case. Burzynski chose to boldly face
his accusers, a decision which threw the federal attorneys' case off balance.
In addition, surgeons who have been doing emergency surgery for Burzynski's
patients have also been subpoenaed before the grand jury and ordered to bring
an enormous number of documents, including medical records and details of
their medical practice. To us, this is clearly harassmentan attempt
to isolate Burzynski, so that when his patients need emergency services,
such as catheter placements, they won't be able to get them.
To add to the tension, after the raid BRI was under steady surveillance,
with agents in unmarked cars recording the license plate numbers of people
entering and leaving the Institute. Put mildly, this did not foster an atmosphere
conducive to the healing of cancer! This is FDA mind-body medicine in reverse,
with a devastating message of fear to any hapless patients who thought they
heard a message of hope emanating from Houston.
CBS RESPONSE: Over that weekend, The Cancer Chronicles sent out the first of several memosto inform members of the Alternative Medicine Program Advisory Council (AMPAC), NIH officials, Congressmen, and other interested parties of the raid. On Tuesday, March 28, This Morning featured the Burzynski raid as its lead item,
right after the regular morning news. Dr. B. and Rick Jaffe were interviewed
by satellite, and they gave a mature and balanced presentation of the matter.This
Morning's host said on the air that his staff would be keeping a very close
watch on developments at the Burzynski clinic. Burzynski has also been
interviewed by and may soon appear on ABC News Nightline.
The irony is that for several years Burzynski has enjoyed decent relations
with the FDA in Washington. FDA has approved trials of antineoplastons not
just at BRI but at Memorial Sloan-Kettering and the Mayo Clinic. Just days
before the raid, the OAM's advisory council, AMPAC, held a meeting and heard
a favorable presentation on Burzynski's work. A representative of FDA was
at that meeting but there was absolutely no indication from her that FDA
looked askance at BRI's conduct, or that there were violations that could
not have been corrected by amicable means. The raid raises the disturbing
possibility that someone on high wanted to wreck this relationship and make
these scientific trials fail.
THREE THEORIES: The raid has been a public relations fiasco for the FDA. So why would it shoot itself in the foot like this? There are three theories we have heard
for this turn of events:
The good ol' boy network. According to this theory, the FDA in Washington
(including Commissioner David Kessler) knew nothing about the raid. It was
engineered by a "good ol' boy" network of agents in Houston's FDA enforcement
branch. These people are ignorant and/or contemptuous of the improved relations
between the national FDA and alternative medicine, and vent their anger at
what they stupidly think is the leading "quack" doctor in their midst.
In favor of this theory: mid-level government employees did seem to be taken
by surprise by the raid; we have heard that The Cancer Chronicles fax was
for many their first word of the event. On the other hand, it seems equally
incredible that anyone would dare to take such an action without at least
Dr. Kessler's tacit support.
Postal theory. According to this theory, the raid originated not with
the FDA at all but with US Postal Inspectors, because of an alleged use of
the mails to illegally ship antineoplastons out of state. A postal inspector
did accompany the FDA agents on the raid. And one postal inspector allegedly
told a Burzynski brain cancer patient that "we have better treatments for
cancer" than antineoplastons!
"Given the difficulty of delivering a letter on time," Dean Mouscher, a BRI
employee commented on Compuserve on 3/27/95, "one can understand why the
post office prefers to tackle something easy like brain cancer."
Establishment theory. According to this view, the action had to come
from the top, and is part of a long-time effort on the part of the cancer
establishment, including Kessler, to "get" the innovative Texas physician.
According to this theory, the raid was the response of quackbusters, in and
out of government, who became panicked and outraged over the growing acceptance
of Burzynski, and especially his CBS appearances.
This theory is supported by the precision timing of the action, as well as
by the fact that another FDA action in 1993 also took place while Burzynski
was away, in that case at an OAM meeting attended by FDA officials. Whatever
the final explanation, the raid on Burzynski was a shot across the bow of
the entire alternative health movement.
Burzynski patients have been contacted and harassed by FDA agents, apparently
for nothing more than receiving and taking antineoplastons for their own
use . One cancer patient has allegedly been threatened with a Grand Jury
subpoena of his own. In New York, FDA agents came to a patient's house and
demanded that his wife turn over medicines, which she refused to do. But
with a complete list of Dr. B.'s patients, the FDA can now contact some very
sick people and their family members and attempt to generate
"evidence" to be used to put their physician out of businessor
worsein prison. As if having cancer weren't hard enoughpatients
now have to deal with vigilantes masquerading as health protectors!
Finally, in the midst of all this legal trouble, the NCI, FDA, and Memorial
Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) have taken an action almost certain
to scuttle clinical trials of antineoplastons at MSKCC.
Together, they arbitrarily decided to change the terms under which
Burzynski's medicines would be tested. Under a prior agreement with Burzynski,
MSKCC was supposed to test antineoplastons in adults with brain tumors 5
centimeters (two inches) or smaller, and who did not have multiple tumors.
Yet in two years, MSKCC has enrolled very few patients in this trial.
Then, without consulting Dr. Burzynski, Sloan-Kettering asked for and got
permission from the FDA and NCI to test antineoplastons in patients with
tumors of any size, with multiple tumors, with distant metastases, and with
lower "Karnofsky" (performance) scores. A patient who has already failed
to respond to surgery, radiation, and/or chemotherapy, who has numerous huge
tumors, metastases in the liver and lungs, and a declining performance score
can now be enrolled to "test" this gentle non-toxic treatment, whose protocol
was designed to treat patients in earlier stages.
It is known to all that these antineoplastons, at the dosages given, almost
certainly will not work in this situation. Patients will die. Nevertheless,
its "failure" will be loudly announced to the public, most probably on national
television, and will deal a heavy blow to this treatment and to alternative
medicine in general. Some people apparently think this trick will dispose
of Dr. Burzynski, leaving the field clear for any "genius" who wants to
"discover" antineoplaston-like drugs.
Burzynski's case reminds us of the words of Bishop Martin Niemoeller, who
failed to respond when others were persecuted by the fascists: "Then they
came for me, but by that time no one was left to speak up."
JUDGE RESTORES BURZYNSKI'S LICENSE,
CHASTISES TEXAS BOARD
From The Cancer Chronicles #26
[JUST BEFORE THE FEDERAL AXE FELL ON BURZYNSKI! THESE SEEM LIKE HALYCON DAYS!
© Feb. 1995 by Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.
Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski, the controversial Houston, TX cancer doctor,
has won a major political struggle against the Texas State Board of Medical
Examiners (TSBME). On Friday, February 3, 1995, an Austin judge ruled that
Burzynski, one of the country's leading alternative doctors, could continue
to practice medicine in the state. This came as welcome news to the staff
of the Institute, as well as to more than 200 people with cancer and AIDS
who believe their lives depend on their continued access to antineoplastons.
Burzynski discovered these natural, non-toxic peptides in Poland more than
two decades ago. They are currently under examination worldwide, including
at the NCI, MSKCC, and the Mayo Clinic.The TSBME initiated this action several
years ago, when it charged Dr. B with violating Texas law by treating patients
with drugs that are not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Burzynski replied that Section 5.09 of the Texas Medical Practices act authorized
him to treat patients with any necessary drugs. The law reads that "a physician
licensed to practice medicine under this Act may supply patients with any
drugs, remedies or clinical supplies as are necessary to meet the patients'
immediate needs." Back in May 1993, a two-day hearing was held before an
administrative law judge, Earl Corbitt. His ruling was to serve as a
recommendation to the TSBME. Corbitt eventually ruled that antineoplastons
were indeed necessary to meet the patients' immediate needs for survival.
He received testimony from Dr. Nicholas Patronas, the chief of Neuroradiology
at NCI, who led a site visit for the government in which it was concluded
that Burzynski's treatment was in fact effective in the treatment of some
cases of brain cancer. He also heard from several patients who claimed to
have greatly benefitted from the nontoxic peptide treatment. Corbitt concluded
that the State had not offered any evidence to the contrary.
In August, 1994, however, the TSBME met again and emphatically rejected Judge
Corbitt's decision. Astonishingly, they ruled that the mere survival of patients
did not qualify as an "immediate need" under the law. Therefore, according
to the Board, Dr. B. had been breaking the law by giving this treatment to
his patients outside the context of FDA trials. In a decision that outraged
defenders around the world, the Texas Board put this innovative researcher
on probation for 10 years. This was a sword of Damocles over his head and
that of hundreds of anxious patients.
Dr. Burzynski, through his veteran lawyer, Richard Jaffe, appealed the
Board's decision to Texas District Court Judge Paul Davis. They expected
a long and drawn out struggle. Thus, even his most ardent supporters were
surprised when Judge Davis ruled from the bench (i.e., immediately) to reverse
the Board's decision. He called their decision:
"In excess of the agency's statutory authority, not reasonably supported
by substantial evidence, capricious or arbitary, and characterized by abuse
It is now up to the Texas medical board to decide whether or not it will
appeal this stinging rebuke. If they do, as now seems likely, Burzynski
supporters say they are likely to be dealt an even more definitive rejection
of the notion that Texas patients are too stupid to make their own choices
in cancer care.
From The Cancer Chronicles #30
© Dec. 1995 by Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.
In September, 1991, NCI sent a team of site visit team to Dr. Burzynski's
clinic in Houston. After reviewing six cases, they concluded that his results
in brain cancer were as good as any they had seen in 20 years.I remember
thinking at the time, "Now it's gonna hit the fan." I knew that such validation
would result in a furious counterattack. And within months there was was
an intensification of attacks in the Journal of the American Medical Association,
Real cancer quacks are self-defeating. Their unethical behavior refutes whatever
good results they may obtain by their sheer temerity. By contrast, it has
been Dr. Burzynski's insistence on an objective test of his compounds and
concepts (while he continues to treat patients) that has gotten him into
all this trouble. Sensing this, I called the chapter on him in The Cancer
Industry (1989) "the fiercest battle."
It is his insistence of doing things the scientific way that has made him
the flashpoint for the whole cancer war. That is why the enemies of alternative
medicine are fighting so fiercely to destroy him, regardless of the deadly
effects on 300 cancer patients today, and the immeasurable harm to the patients
A VISIT TO HOUSTON:
BURZYNSKI CONTINUES FIGHT
UNDER THE FDA GUN
From The Cancer Chronicles #32-#33
© June 1996 by Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.
In mid-April,  I travelled to Houston to interview Dr. Stanislaw R.
Burzynski, MD, PhD, his attorney Richard Jaffe, and others involving in defending
the innovative cancer doctor. On the day before I arrived, Dr. Burzynski
for the first time in his entire careerwas forced to turn away
cancer patients who arrived at his clinic for treatment.
This was my fourth visit to his clinic. This time I wanted to show solidarity
with the patients and with the beleaguered researcher as much as to assess
how the recent barrage of attacks has affected the Burzynski Research Institute.
What I found was an amazing picture of fortitude in the face of unimaginable
adversity. On a personal level, Dr. and Mrs. Burzynski seem to be holding
up remarkably well, and going about their business, which happens to be treating
people with cancer.
If the leaders of FDA and the US Attorney's office in Houston who dreamed
up this latest attack thought their actions would cripple BRI, they were
greatly mistaken. Public inquiries about antineoplaston treatment have never
been higher (sometimes totalling an incredible 1,000 calls per day). People
are beating down the doors to get in. BRI is advertising on the Internet
for physicians and is adding a new production line at their giant Texas plant.
Think about this for a minute: the government announces that it has indicted
a doctor on 75 counts of fraud. Does the public run in the opposite direction?
Absolutely not. There is instead a tremendous increase in patient, public
and media interest and sympathy for the beleaguered physician. This one fact
speaks volumes about what the average American thinks of the cancer-related
information emanating from agencies of the US government.Common sense tells
us that Burzynski is a legitimate and innovative scientist, not a fraud.
First, it is now well known that in 1991 NCI sent hand-picked scientists
to investigate Burzynski's work. They only had time to look at six cases,
but they concluded that antineoplastons actually caused regressions in these
Second, Burzynski himself pleads for his methods to be evaluated by independent
scientists. He came before the Office of Alternative Medicine's advisory
board and offered to have OAM independently review every case coming into
his office for a full year. He found no takers.
Third, nearly a dozen top US medical centers are now investigating through
clinical trials a substance called phenylacetate. Phenylacetate is the main
ingredient in Burzynski's compound, antineoplaston AS2-1. And the erstwhile
NCI scientist who developed this treatment learned about it in Texas at Dr.
My visit to BRI left me tremendously concerned for the future of this embattled
institution, and for this country as well. Dr. Burzynski's cause is our cause.
We simply cannot allow him to be destroyed. If cancer patients, well-meaning
doctors and supporters let the federal government annihilate Dr. Burzynski
and his treatment, it will be a loss for all future generations.
UPDATE ON CASE (1996): Confused about developments in Houston? Join the crowd.
The last few months have witnessed a bizarre tangle of actions, attacks,
motions and countermotions; and the trial hasn't even begun! Here is a quick
chronological summary of developments in the case through the first half
of 1996. (More details can be found at BRIs Internet site
Feb. 9: US District Court Judge Sim Lake rules that Dr. Burzynski cannot
treat patients outside of clinical trials. Then, probably because he recognizes
the harm this would cause patients, he stays his own order, so that it does
not immediately go into effect. Burzynski files four new "treatment use
INDs" (Investigational New Drug applications) with the FDA. This is to enable
him to treat most patients.
Feb. 23: The FDA informs Burzynski that his request for "treatment use
INDs" has been refused. But after pressure from Congress ( especially Rep.
Joe Barton, R-TX), FDA agrees to allow Burzynski to enroll most of his current
patients in a catch-all clinical trial, "CAN-1." This covers patients who
began treatment before Feb. 23.
Feb. 27: Lake extends his stay until noon, March 27, 1996 on condition that
Burzynski appeals his ruling to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Burzynski
files his appeal.
February 29 to March 25: Burzynski, working frantically, files 60 new clinical
trial protocols with the FDA. If approved, these would create 60 new clinical
trials into which most of Dr. Burzynski's patients could be enrolled. Dr.
Burzynski would be able to continue treating most current and future patients.
March 12:. FDA responds to Burzynski's request for permission to charge clinical
trial patients to at least recover the cost of manufacturing antineoplastons.
Such permission is necessary because Burzynski receives no outside funding.
Janet Woodcock, MD, of FDA says that before they will consider such a request,
Burzynski must submit detailed records of every payment ever made by his
patientsmore than 2,500 over the past 18 years.
March 26: More than 20 of Burzynski's patients hold a press conference in
Washington, DC the day before Judge Lake's order is to go into effect, cutting
off 120 patients from antineoplaston treatment. (The FDA still has not responded
to the 60 new protocols.)
March 27: At the 11th hour, Judge Lake extends his own stay until the Fifth
Circuit rules on Burzynski's appeal. As a result of this "stay of
execution," Burzynski may continue to treat his patients as before.
March 28: FDA inspectors arrive at Burzynski's manufacturing facility for
a "routine" inspection. Previously, the huge and modern facility had exceeded
Current Good Manufacturing Practices standards. This time, inspectors claim
to find several deficiencies. These include a failure to sample and test
incoming plastic IV bags for microbiological contamination, and to maintain
Certificates of Analysis from the supplier, Abbot Labs, certifying sterility
of each batch received. Burzynski asks Abbot for this and Abbot replies that
this documentation was already on file with the FDA; they do not provide
such a certificate for any of their other customers.
FDA also attacks the pyrogen-testing procedure (pyrogens are impurities that
can cause fever). But the procedure Burzynski uses was approved by the FDA
during several inspections, most recently August, 1993. FDA also demands
testing of certain reference media. But again when Burzynski tells the supply
company (Associates of Cape Cod, Inc.) of FDA's comment, it writes back:
"We do the standardization in-house and provide our customers with a
Certificate of Analysis which is recognized and accepted by FDA." Clearly,
whole new standards are being created for Burzynski.
March 29: The White House and FDA Commissioner David Kessler announce sweeping
changes designed to hasten the approval of new anticancer drugs, and promise
expanded access to same for cancer patients.
April 10: FDA puts all clinical trials of antineoplastons on "partial
hold," citing the inspection report. It is "partial" since Dr. Burzynski
may continue to treat current patients, but for the second time, they say
he may not accept new patients. FDA agrees that Burzynski has responded to
all its comments in the inspection report, but insists that the hold is necessary
until a re-inspection can be performed. In so doing, FDA seems to violate
its own rules: Code of Federal Regulations 21 CFR 312.42 subsection (c) states
that FDA will attempt to "discuss and satisfactorily resolve" the matter
with the sponsor before issuing the clinical hold order.
BRI spokespersons point that out there has never been an incident of
contamination of antineoplastons, and in fact FDA found no trace of contamination
during its inspections. Yet in effect FDA is telling Dr. Burzynski's patients
that antineoplastons present a more "immediate and serious risk" than their
own fast-growing tumors but only if they began treatment after April
10. Besieged by desperate patients and their families, Burzynski continues
to accept some new patients, but cannot put them in clinical trials
slowing the approval and widespread availability of antineoplastons.
April 15: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirms Judge Lake's order
forbidding Burzynski from treating patients outside of clinical trials. The
stay is vacated. Dr. Burzynski now faces prison if he treats patients outside
of the clinical trials. He must cut off treatment to patients who began after
April 10 (the cut-off date of FDA's "partial hold") and to those who do not
qualify for any clinical trial and began treatment after February 23
in all, about 20 patients. He will also have to turn away more than 100 very
advanced cancer patients scheduled to begin treatment over the next month.
The Burzynski clinic asks FDA's Chief of Oncology, Dr. Robert DeLap, if he
would at least extend the cut-off date to April 15 so that existing patients
would not be cut off. DeLap refuses.
April 16: For the first time since opening his practice in 1977, Dr. Burzynski
is forced to turn away cancer patients who have arrived at his clinic for
treatment. Many have fast-growing tumors including glioblastoma multiforme
a brain cancer so aggressive it can double in size every ten days.
"These patients do not agree with FDA that the minuscule, theoretical risk
of undetected pyrogens is a greater threat than their untreated cancers,"
says BRI's Dean Mouscher. "But they are powerless. It is difficult to describe
their anguish, and that of their families."
April 25: Patient P.G., battling breast cancer that has metastasized to her
brain, is admitted to the hospital. She arrives after the FDA hold is imposed,
and has been waiting for treatment. In a separate action, Anthony DeCicco
of the FDA's Division of Antiviral Drugs telephones Dr. Burzynski to tell
him that he must stop treating his HIV patients. Dr. Burzynski reminds him
in writing that this action directly violates promises by high FDA
officials, including Commissioner Kessler, that FDA would not interrupt the
treatment of any patient who began before February 23.
April 29: FDA inspectors arrive at the manufacturing facility for re-inspection.
They remain till May 1.
May 1: The inspection finishes at 11:00 AM. Late that afternoon, word comes
from Washington that Burzynski may once again accept new patients. For the
patient in the hospital who is now close to death, it comes too late.
May 9: FDA sends a letter with "comments" on 12 more of the clinical trials
Dr. Burzynski is conducting. Many of the comments concern a clinical trial
of rare brain tumors in children such as rhabdoid tumor of the brain, the
most aggressive of all childhood cancers. Conventional therapy is useless
against it. Burzynski is currently treating two children suffering from rhabdoid
brain tumors. Dr. Burzynski has evidence of success against this type of
tumor. But FDA informs Burzynski that he must stop accepting new rhabdoid
tumor patients for treatment because this tumor is so rare that "it is unlikely
that this trial will generate any useful scientific data."
And so it goes...More documentation is available from BRI detailing the struggle.
A nationally-renowned cameraman, has put together a videotape chronicling
patients' struggle with FDA for the right to treatment of their choice. For
information, call (214) 707-4907.
EDITORIAL: AGAIN, DEFEND BURZYNSKI!
From The Cancer Chronicles #32-33
© June 1996 by Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.
The nightmare continues. Once again, I must ask you to turn your mind toward
Houston, toward the government's persecution of Stanislaw R. Burzynski, MD,
I recently flew to Houston to have a first-hand look at what this persecution
is doing to the Burzynski Research Institute. I met with Dr. and Mrs. Burzynski,
with patients, and with his attorney, Rick Jaffe. What I saw left me frightened.
You cannot help but be inspired by Dr. B. He is like that indomitable bird,
the storm petrel. It soars above the waves, deriving an inexhaustible source
of energy from the turbulence it finds beneath its wings.So Burzynski goes
on, day by day, treating his patients, trying to do some good in the face
of his implacable enemiescancer and some agencies of the federal
I have always enjoyed talking science with Dr. Burzynski. Now it is a bittersweet
experience. We discuss the relationship of ras oncogenes and methylation.
Yet there is a sadness: all these potential breakthroughs will be moot if
Dr. B. winds up in an orange jumpsuit. Not much biomedical science gets done
I came away from Houston in a state of muted alarm. I believe the situation
is much worse than most of us imagined. We have naively assumed that someone
(A reporter? A Congressman? The President?) would expose, and thereby
put an end to, this outrage. But there are people in the FDA and the Houston
US Attorney's office who are dead set on putting Burzynski away for a
good long time. The judge seems hostile and eagerly subscribes to the
government's flimsy arguments.So forget the Hippocratic oath, the Helsinki
Declaration or freedom of choice. And never mind whether Dr. B. has really
helped people! This is what the war on cancer really comes down toa
war by our government on the most promising non-toxic treatments.
home - moss
reports - books -
- contact - order
chronicles - faq
- free email newsletter