home
articles on freedom of choice
These points are evidenced by the three studies relied upon in the report. The first is NCIıs 1983 study on Burzynskiıs antineoplastons using the P338 mouse leukemia tumor model. This is bad science and OTA is simply propagating it.
Dr. Burzynski told Dr. Mead of NCI that his treatment does not work on leukemia, let alone mouse leukemia. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that NCIıs study showed that the treatment had no effect.
In 1986, Dr. Mead admitted that his assay did not provide good results for solid tumors. NCI is now supposedly trying to develop a broader approach to determine whether cancer treatments work.
If the NCI itself rejects the methodology of the study, why is it in this report? What is the scientific basis?
Secondly, the report is not complete. There have been in vitro and animal studies which show that the Burzynski treatment does work, done by researchers at a major teaching university in Japan, the Medical College of Georgia and the US Department of Defense.
A major insurance company has now completed a 12-month review, in which they sent investigators, including the director of medical services and the director of research, to Burzynskiıs clinic. They are now paying for the treatment--indeed, they are recommending patients.
On the legal and insurance sections: the report needs much more work. You have to be accurate. The worst thing one can do, as a lawyer, is to cite the wrong case or fail to cite the final decision. There are numerable instances of that in the OTA report. For example, references to our cases, including Schneider v. Revici and Burzynski v. Aetna are grossly inaccurate.