“What frightens the establishment about Antineoplastons, has nothing to do with some guy in Texas who invented them—based on some peptide-based extract. It’s about their loss of control and authority over a highly profitable share of the market that they’ve controlled since The War On Cancer was enacted.”
Eric Merola Director: Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business Film Serious
The goal is to inject as much noise as possible to keep the public from deciphering the true signal.
The technical definition for these activities, is called “Astroturfing”. [click here for the definition].
The most recent example of Astroturfing in the news was exposed in an August 9, 2015 New York Times article titled “Coca-Cola Funds Scientists Who Shift Blame for Obesity Away From Bad Diets”. The article explains how Coca-Cola (in response to a 25% decrease in sales the last two decades due to a decline in health for consumers) created a non-profit called “Global Energy Balance Network” and has placed millions of dollars into this non-profit for the goal of spreading positive pro-Coca-Cola propaganda trying to debunk the obesity and Type 2 diabetes health hazards from consuming Coca-Cola. The rhetoric is all the same, claiming “science-based” data, when in reality the data is the farthest from “science-based” at all.
Creating a fake grassroots organization to push an agenda of protecting an organization’s bottom line has proven to be one of the most effective forms of propaganda in our modern times. The average joe doesn’t know the difference between a propaganda campaign and a legitimate scientific study.
Another example of a past famous Astroturf campaign, is when health advocates began winning legislation to raise taxes and increase regulation of smoking in the USA—Phillip Morris, Burson-Marrsteller, and other tobacco interests created the “National Smokers Alliance” (NSA) in 1993. The NSA and other tobacco interests initiated an aggressive public relations campaign from 1994-1999 in an effort to exaggerate the appearance of grassroots support for smoker’s rights.
The anti-Burzynski/Antineoplastons group who ironically call themselves “The Skeptics” work the same way. Some are paid by third party interest groups, that appear to be unrelated to the industry itself, in an effort to destroy or at least stall the progress of Antineoplastons. (They aren’t exclusively against Antineoplastons, they go after anything that isn’t invented, packaged, and sold by the pharmaceutical industry). The rest operate under tight dogmatic “groupthink” behaviors, and blindly follow the paid ones, having no real idea of what they are writing and publishing due their weak intellectual vulnerability to desperately want to be accepted by the larger “paid” group. It’s a very intelligent and effective way to go about spreading disinformation in a world where many naive and vulnerable people want to not believe these activities occur, so they seek a google search to reinforce their core belief system—regardless if what they find relates to the truth or not. Just how right-wing groups prefer right-wing publications, left-wing groups prefer left-wing publications, and so on.
*If you read any of these “Anti-Burzynski” blogs you will notice their rhetoric is based on rabid hateful contention, resorting to character attacks and ad hominem attacks, while completely avoiding the facts themselves. Those who believe the unsubstantiated statements written in their blogs are their target audience. These very same people are the so-called “editors” who gate-keep the “Burzynski” Wikipedia page, then write their own blogs as “sources” to the very same unsubstantiated statements placed within the Wikipedia page.
There is little hope of changing the minds of these groupthink individuals, because they are not “science-based” individuals searching for the truth, and we wouldn’t recommend wasting your time with them trying to convince them of the proven facts before them. Groupthinkers have been a big part of the human culture since the beginning of time.
Because it is difficult to decipher who is an Astroturf Group and who is a well-meaning journalist, sometimes they are able to influence vulnerable members of the mainstream press. These same bloggers recently manipulated Liz Szabo of USA TODAY (in Nov. 2013) and worked together to create one of the most unsubstantiated and biased articles on Burzynski to date.
You will notice they do not attack other similar documentary projects the same way they attack this one. The reason being, most other so-called “alternative cancer therapies” do not stand a chance of actually reaching FDA approval and changing the paradigm of cancer therapy like “Antineoplastons” do. It’s a genuine threat that scares them to the core.
The reality is, if Antineoplastons were placed on the market for any type of cancer—anyone would be able to gain access to it under the FDA’s “Off label” clause. This would be permanently and detrimentally damaging to the cancer industry, as most any cancer patient who has experienced a failed surgery, or has an inoperable cancer would inevitably choose Antineoplastons over conventional toxic therapy, simply for quality of life issues. Also, since the patents on Antineoplastons have been around for a long time, they would only hold a 7-year exclusive patent upon reaching market before becoming a generic drug (like most antibiotics). Even if a member of PhRMA were to purchase Antineoplastons for distribution, it would destroy their company along with all other competing companies, upon the medicines reaching “generic status”.
The industry also profits greatly from all the anti-inflammatory medications, anti-nausea medications, anti-depressants, and more that are given as a standard to many cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy and radiation. The issue of Antineoplastons is merely a market issue, not a scientific one. Creating an aggressive Astroturf campaign is one of the final stages of defense when an industry is trying to preserve a monopolistic advantage over the market.
Overall, you need to be able to think for yourself. Question everything, including us and this film. Feel free to verify all sources used for this film for yourself via the Sourced Transcript [link]. You will notice the Astroturf campaign related to the “anti-Burzynski bloggers” refuse to do that, they instead engage in ad hominem attacks to avoid the truth presented in this project. These Astroturf bloggers have an agenda, and are not open to any rational discourse whatsoever.
Our society is increasingly built on wars of information and disinformation. The fact that most people will basically believe anything they are told without bothering to find out if what they are told is true or not—makes them for vulnerable prey, especially when they are dying of cancer. The writers of the “anti-Burzynski” bloggers know this—and take full advantage of this. That is the entire goal of an Astroturf campaign.
Next time you read an article from ironically titled blogs like “Science Based Medicine” or “Science Blogs” take the time to actually “fact-check” what they are writing, and you will begin to see their house of cards for what it is.
1. The Orthodox Scriptures
To fully utilize this article, click on the blue text to link to the source being discussed.
Dr. Burzynski’s approach to cancer treatment is not unlike much of the newly surfacing gene-targeted treatments available today.
For example, a recent special on PBS’s NOVA explored how a scientist named Dr. Jean-Pierre Issa from M.D. Anderson Cancer Center has been utilizing “genetic switches” to cure a form of cancer known as leukemia. This scientist has been widely hailed as a pioneering genius, and his ideas are now widely implemented when approaching the treatment of leukemia. Dr. Burzynski’s discovery is nothing less than identical to Dr. Issa’s—as he uses “genetic switches” to address the cancers he treats in his clinic. Yet, due to the orthodox beliefs instilled within most of the population of the medical profession, they are taught that even though Burzynski’s scientific method of treating cancer is virtually identical to Dr. Issa’s—that somehow, without sound scientific reason to defend it, Burzynski’s method is simply not valid. Thus resulting in a “blind belief” based on “orthodox scripture”.
“Certainly the idea of genetic switches that was introduced over 30 years ago is becoming contagious. Dr. Issa from M.D. Anderson is one of the leaders in epigenetics. What is important in his interview is that he seems to agree with my theory of gene silencing in aging and also the theory of the master clock of life, which is based on the telomere mechanism” – Stanislaw Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D., 2009
The 2009 Nobel Prize in Medicine was granted to scientists “for the discovery of how chromosomes are protected by telomeres and the enzyme telomerase.” A discovery that “has inspired experimental cancer therapies”. However, this discovery is one that Dr. Burzynski has been utilizing long before 2009 in relationship to his methods for treating cancer through genetic switches.
In 2010, scientists at Harvard have been studying telomerase as well.
“It looks like we are rapidly approaching times when the people will say that what I am doing is ‘obvious’.” – Stanislaw Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D., 2009
2. How Have Current Medical Orthodox Beliefs Succeeded In Dismissing Burzynski’s Discovery?
To fully utilize this article, click on the blue text to link to the source being discussed.
In order to fully understand this, perhaps it’s important to review another example of sound scientific observations that conflicted with the established scientific order of it’s time. In the 1840’s a Hungarian physician named Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis discovered that if a doctor simply washed his hands after performing an autopsy, and before aiding in the birth of a child—it would prevent the spread of disease and infection. In essence, Dr. Semmelweis simply discovered that it was a good idea for any physician to wash their hands before performing any medical procedure. Today this concept is widely accepted as a scientific truth. However, in the 1840’s, Dr. Semmelweis’ observations were widely viewed as preposterous. Dr. Semmelweis was ostracized from the medical profession for his “hand washing” observation and later died in an insane asylum.
“To show you the problems we face in the current-day paradigm of cancer treatment—there was no money in hand washing vs. non hand washing. This was just the belief system so ingrained in physicians that it was heretical to challenge what they thought was right.” – Julian Whitaker, M.D. 2009
There are three basic phases that any orthodox belief system generally passes through when evolving new ideas such as Semmelweis’. The first is rejection. The second is denial. The third is acceptance.
While it may be difficult for most of us to imagine that such an irrational event could occur today, it would be highly arrogant of us to assume that it could not. Particularly when there’s evidence to demonstrate that it is. Just as in Semmelweis’ time, the medical orthodoxy is currently at a crossroad in relationship to Burzynski’s discovery. It seems the established order has successfully moved beyond total rejection, and into the second phase—denial.
Today, Burzynski’s treatment has successfully completed FDA-supervised Phase II clinical trials using his medical discovery (antineoplastons) to treat cancer. One of the most notable results being that antineoplastons hold the first and only cures for inoperable, intrinsic childhood brainstem glioma found in any experimental clinical trial in the history of medicine (See Jessica Ressel’s story). Yet, regardless of this reality, the medical establishment has generally denied this finding of scientific fact. Instead of welcoming this stunning accomplishment, an accomplishment that has never occurred before in the history of medicine, the medical establishment has dogmatically preserved it’s mechanism of denial:
“Another incident happened last Friday when the FDA, first time, refused to permit the treatment with antineoplastons for a 20-year-old man diagnosed with inoperable brainstem glioma because “he did not have prior standard treatment.” As you know, there is no standard treatment for this type of brain tumor and over 90% of patients are dead within two years and everybody is dead in 5 years. We supplied the FDA with extensive data on the efficacy of antineoplastons in this type of tumor including 94 evaluable patients. We have seen the best survival rates among adult patients. For them, two years survival is 87% and five years survival is 50%. Yet the FDA is easily sentencing a young man to die a slow death because they are depriving him of the chance to be treated with antineoplastons.” – Stanislaw Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D. – email communication, Nov. 11, 2009.
The above example is clear display of denial of scientific fact—in an effort to preserve the current medical orthodoxy—an orthodox belief system that has not yet reached the phase of acceptance in regards to antineoplastons. While it may be frustrating to hear such a story, we must come to realize that historically—this has always been the process. A process that will inevitably end with the acceptance of antineoplastons and other forms of gene-targeted therapy to treat the disease of cancer. Thus finally placing the outdated nature of previous treatment modalities such as chemotherapy and radiation—into the drawer next to the bloodletting kit and the flat earth.
It is the author’s opinion that such a transition can be an exciting one. When else in our generation or in recent history have we been offered the opportunity to witness one of the largest paradigm-shifts in medial history? Think about it—when the population of the planet had to finally agree that “yes, the earth is indeed round”—imagine how profound that must have been for the population to come to realize that something that they were taught their entire lives—was in fact wrong. Or for that matter, how about two thousand years of “bloodletting”?
3. Functioning Within The Phase Of Denial
To fully utilize this article, click on the blue text to link to the source being discussed.
Most medical professionals within the practice of oncology know that the majority of the current orthodox cancer treatments simply do not work in respect to actually saving lives. Of course, undoubtably, if a person is diagnosed with cancer early enough, very often the original tumor can be successfully removed through surgery. There is no question that such a technique has proven successful time and again. However, it’s important to remember that this technique has been around for over 100 years—and is still based on the concept of “purging” the body of cancer, as opposed to “reprogramming” the cancer to behave like a normal cell and die—which is precisely what a gene-targeted cancer therapy such as antineoplastons do.
What if someone is diagnosed with a form of cancer that cannot be removed through surgery? Unfortunately, there is very little that can be done to safely save this person’s life within the current medical orthodoxy. The treatments generally offered to such patients are chemotherapy and/or radiation.
Chemotherapy – Chemotherapy was first discovered in the 1940’s while testing the effects of the chemical warfare material “mustard gas”. It was found that humans exposed to mustard gas had profound lymphoid and myeloid suppression. This observation was reason to believe that such a chemotherapeutic agent could be successful in treating lymphoma—and indeed it was. Shortly after World War II, more research was done that found that other chemicals used in a similar fashion were effective against leukemia. Once chemotherapy regimens were explored further, it soon became the norm to give chemotherapeutic agents to any and everyone suffering from an inoperable cancer without any evidence to justify it. Why? Mainly because there simply wasn’t any other options available at the time. (This is actually not entirely true, as Coley’s Mixed Bacterial Vaccine proved to be remarkably successful in the treatment of inoperable human cancers, but it was quickly ostracized due to it’s inexpensive nature and non-patentability—a subject better suited for another posting [PDF all]).
To date, there is simply no scientific evidence to support a significant chance of saving a patient’s life using the administration of chemotherapy for treating inoperable cancers—with the exception of lymphomas, leukemia, and testicular cancers. In 2004, The Royal College of Radiologists conducted an extensive study reviewing any and all published peer-reviewed clinical trials across the United States involving the use of chemotherapy treatment from January 1990 to January 2004. The combined total percentage of 5-year survival rates in cancer patients treated with chemotherapy—covering 22 different types of malignancies—was a mere 2.1%. Testicular cancer had a 37.7% survival rate; Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma had a 10.5% survival rate; and Hodgkin’s disease had a 40.3% survival rate after being treated with chemotherapy. Yet, even combined with these high percentages, the chances of surviving cancer using the treatment of chemotherapy for any other type of cancer was shown to be so dismal, that the overall survival rate was still a mere 2.1%. [Please download the PDF and read the actual study for yourself].
On Wednesday February 24, 2010 a rather revealing article was published involving one of the University of Michigan’s top cancer experts explaining “The reason breast cancer and other malignancies often return aggressively after treatment is that when tumor cells die under assault from chemotherapy and radiation, they give off substances that can reactivate a special set of master cells known as cancer stem cells .. Dr. Wicha’s lab has found that inflammatory molecules secreted by dying tumor cells can hook up with the stem cells and cause them in effect to come out of hibernation.” Read the full article here.
MSNBC has recently reported that some nurses who administer chemotherapy to patients may be developing cancer themselves. “Chemo is poison, by design”.
Radiation – The author has yet to find a large cumulative study (as was performed by the Royal College Of Radiologists in regards to chemotherapy) to support the overall survival rates of radiation therapy. However, conventional wisdom should tell us—there is a reason your dentist ducks into another room while performing x-rays on your teeth: radiation causes cancer.
So why then—if we know for certain—based on sound peer-reviewed scientific evidence, that the standard orthodox cancer treatments that are widely utilized today to treat patients with inoperable cancer simply do not have the data to justify using them—why do they continue to be implemented today?
The first reason we have covered, and that is the indoctrinated belief systems instilled within medical orthodox scripture used to educate the medical professional on “how to” and “how not to” treat inoperable cancer. The medical professional is often viewed by most societies as having an almost mystical “all-knowing” power to diagnose and treat the illnesses of our time. However, the scientific method demonstrates that this is simply a myth. If it weren’t a myth, then all of the attention spent on modern-day cancer treatments would be spent in the direction of antineoplastons and other forms of gene-targeted therapy, and not on the archaic failures of chemotherapy and radiation. Likewise, if a medical professional—upon graduating from the teachings of medical orthodox scripture—indeed possesses an “all knowing” power, then why are so many diseases and ailments constantly misdiagnosed?
The fact of the matter is, unless a licensed physician was provided with at least a semester of “antineoplaston training”, or has been directly involved in the clinical testing of antineoplastons – it is therefore impossible for that medical professional to hold the knowledge related to the subject to make a responsible, informed statement on antineoplastons.
It’s important not to blame or belittle such medical professionals—they are simply a product of their conditioning. As time goes on, they will inevitably grow to accept the undeniable realities of antineoplaston treatment—a reality that has been revealed through the very system they have been taught to respect—the scientific method. Their current struggle through the phase of denial is a required part of their transition into acceptance.
The second reason these treatments remain in place, is directly due to …
4. Money
To fully utilize this article, click on the blue text to link to the source being discussed.
Regardless of where one lives on the planet, whether that system is defined as “socialist”, “communist”, or “capitalist”—there is one defining thread that connects them all: money. Money is utilized in all social systems, and given the advent of western globalization, all systems function within some form of capitalism—regardless of the arbitrary label assigned to that system.
In the United States and most of the western world, capitalism is the dominating social design for trade. It is not the intent of the author to promote or criticize any of these systems, but rather it is the intent of the author to simply point out some of its realities. It is often viewed that a capitalist system is one that promotes “freedom”—the right to choose what one wants to purchase or sell within such a system. However, upon closer examination, one may find that in fact we are not all granted the same “freedoms” to do this. For instance, if a homeless person has no money to purchase food, we are in essence telling that person that they “do not have the freedom to have food”.
This very same mechanism dictates what product has the freedom to—and does not have the freedom to, enter the marketplace.
The pharmaceutical industry is one of the most profitable industries on the planet. As an industry this powerful begins to grow, and it’s profits increase—so does it’s stock price within the market. Likewise, such an industry requires a large work force to sustain the production, distribution, and advertising of it’s products. It should seem obvious that it would be in the best interest of such a company to preserve its profitable momentum.
In the case of the pharmaceutical industry—they are highly dependent on the Food & Drug Administration to approve the new products they distribute, thus sustaining this profitable momentum. Due to this reality, PhRMA has devised a way to both speed up the FDA-approval process, and in some cases avoid the FDA-approval process altogether. This was done by establishing “user fees” imposed upon the FDA through Congress by PhRMA, thus purchasing the FDA’s drug evaluation department from both the government and the public. This new legislation has been highly beneficial in making sure PhRMA’s new patented cancer drugs reach the market much faster than in the past—an effort that has been highly successful in sustaining the pharmaceutical industry’s need for a growing profitable momentum. The total fee revenue paid to the FDA by PhRMA in 2010 is $569,207,000. For most cancer drugs submitted to the FDA, PhRMA now pays them $1.4 million per application [PDF all]. It’s important to understand that the FDA did not request this new fee structure to occur—instead PhRMA went to Congress and imposed these new fees onto the FDA to gain control over it’s drug evaluation department.
Due to the medical industry’s current stranglehold over the FDA-approval process, it has resulted in some backlash from the scientists working within the FDA. Sadly, the calls from these FDA-employed whistleblowers have been largely ignored. [Read a letter written by 9 FDA scientists that was addressed to the co-chairman of President Obama’s transition team in January, 2009 explaining this growing problem – full PDF here]. Read various mainstream articles covering this letter here and here.
It appears that this shift of FDA power handed to the pharmaceutical industry has also prevented competing cancer therapies like antineoplastons from being allowed to fairly go through the FDA-approval process—as giving antineoplastons a fair review process would directly compete with the current $90 billion annual consumer billing (in America alone) PhRMA now has a monopolistic share in.
Think about it—if you were diagnosed with an inoperable cancer, and your choices were chemotherapy, radiation, or antineoplastons—which one of those treatments would you choose?
Now to the heart of the matter—the exclusive patent rights to antineoplastons. Currently, Dr. Burzynski and the Burzynski Research Institute, Inc. hold the exclusive patent and distribution rights to antineoplastons. This means that once antineoplastons are approved, it will be the first time in history that a paradigm-shifting medical breakthrough will reach the market without the involvement of a major, publicly-traded pharmaceutical company. Oh, did I mention that The Burzynski Research Institute, Inc. is also a publicly traded company? BZYR
Place yourself for a moment in the shoes of a CEO of a major pharmaceutical company, and you held he power within the FDA to stop such a product from reaching the market—an effort that would help to preserve the market share that you currently maintain—would you simply stand idle and allow such a thing to occur? Knowing that if you did allow it, it could result in a massive downturn in your company’s profit, thus reducing the value of your stock, and inevitably resulting in massive layoffs within your employee pool?
5. The Food & Drug Administration
To fully utilize this article, click on the blue text to link to the source being discussed.
Not only has the Food & Drug Administration prevented the fair review process of antineoplastons to proceed, but they themselves have made numerous failed attempts at removing Dr Burzynski completely from society—no different than how the established order in Galileo’s time removed him from society.
In fact, in 1983, during one of the earliest court victories against the FDA that Dr. Burzynski endured—the FDA actually sent a threatening letter to the judge in this case warning her in advance: “If this court declines to grant the [injunction] sought by the government, thus permitting continued manufacture and distribution of antineoplastons… the government would then be obliged to pursue other less efficient remedies, such as actions for seizure (a.k.a. raiding Burynski’s clinic and home) and condemnation of the drugs (a.k.a. manufacturing a propaganda campaign against the medicines) or criminal prosecution of individuals (a.k.a. throwing Dr. Burzynski in prison)…” [Read the threat for yourself – PDF]
Over the course of the following 15 years, the FDA repeatedly succeeded in carrying out the first two threats, and failed miserably carrying out the third one. The propaganda campaign manufactured by the FDA during this period is largely responsible for producing and influencing the tainted scripture found within today’s orthodox medical texts regarding antineoplastons.
The only reason Burzysnki is permitted to conduct FDA-supervised clinical trials of antineoplastons today—is because the FDA’s efforts to remove Burzynski from society backfired. In the 1990’s the FDA convened at least five federal grand juries in an effort to place Burzynski in prison for the rest of his life—all of these grand juries ended in no finding of fault on his behalf. Unlike in Galileo’s time, we have a semi-functioning court system established to protect the citizen—if you can afford it.
Due to Congressional and public pressure resulting from the barrage of grand juries, the FDA was forced into allowing Phase II clinical trials of antineoplastons—while Burzynski was facing an FDA indictment. To makes matters worse, the judge in the trial refused to allow the jury to visit Burzynski’s facility where antineoplastons are produced—and outright forbid the mention of whether or not his treatment was effective during the trial. This absurdity did not get past the media [PDF].
Additionally, Dr. Julian Whitaker M.D. spearheaded a fundraising campaign and helped raise over $700,000 for Burzynski’s legal defense—funneling money from both Burzynski’s patients and others in support of Burzynski’s right to freedom. In the end, it was the American public that guaranteed Burzynski’s freedom, not the court system.
While the FDA currently approves new cancer drugs produced by PhRMA within 3 to 4 months [PDF]—Dr. Burzynski, his patients, and other supporting scientists have made every conceivable effort to get the FDA and the government to cooperate in the research, review and approval of antineoplastons since 1977.
Now that antineoplastons are entering into Phase III clinical trials (the final stage before reaching FDA-approval)—PhRMA’s Food & Drug Administration has made what appears to be one last-ditch effort to both stall and sabotage this final phase of antineoplaston testing. The FDA has officially mandated that patients participating in these Phase III trials must simultaneously undergo radiation treatment while receiving antineoplaston treatment [PDF]. Since Dr. Burzynski began treating cancer patients in 1977, never has radiation been a required addition to his treatment—as that’s the entire point of antineoplaston therapy: to reprogram the genetic mechanism that allows cancer to flourish, relieving the patient of having to resort to the the archaic method of “purging” the body of cancer cells through cutting, burning or poisoning them.
The FDA’s only excuse for forcing this to occur is : “it would be unethical not to give radiation treatment to these patients.” Most of the patients to be placed in these trials suffer from inoperable brain cancer. It has been firmly established, based on sound scientific evidence, that radiation treatment administered to the head can not only promote the growth of cancer, but it can result in “brain necrosis”, often killing the patient within one or two years after treatment. (See Jodi Fenton and Jessica Ressel’s story for more on this subject). Therefore, even if antineoplastons successfully cure a large percentage of the brain cancer patients during these new trials, these patients may possibly die within one or two years—even if they are cancer free. If this occurs it would immediately disqualify what is considered a verified cure, as the scientific standards set by today’s established order state that a verified cure means living at least 5 years after diagnosis.
Considering that radiation treatment has never been required to cure cancer patients who undergo antineoplaston therapy, and there is no sound peer-reviewed data to suggest that radiation treatment will offer assistance to antineoplaston therapy—one must conclude, that this new mandate is nothing less than the established medical orthodoxy grasping onto what is left of it’s current established belief system. Not to mention how favorable it will fare for the orthodox cancer industry if this new FDA-mandate results in the failure of these final trials.
We clearly haven’t reached the phase of acceptance yet—even if we have reached the final phase of clinical testing.
There is a reason why patients generally do not survive inoperable brain cancer: chemotherapy can’t get into the brain due to the blood brain barrier, and radiation simply destroys the brain itself. Please read a PDF of court testimony by Dr. Nicholas Patronas (a board-certified radiologist since 1973, Professor of Radiology at Georgetown University and founder of the Neuoradiology section of the National Cancer Institute) to see what a seasoned National Cancer Institute brain tumor expert has to say about radiation therapy vs. antineoplaston therapy.
6. The Astroturf / Misinformation Campaign
WATCH this TEDx lecture on “Astoturfing” to get an introduction.
As with anything new in the realm of science, you will always have detractors who will distort relevant scientific information, and project strategic cherry-picking of anecdotal data or taking data out of context. In the worst case scenarios, some bloggers intentionally publish fabricated information to their readers in an attempt to curb new patients from going to the Burzynski Clinic. These individuals are also responsible for “gate keeping” the Wikipedia Page on The Burzynski Clinic.
The proper definition for the “Skeptic” activities, is called “Astroturfing”. [click here for the definition]. An example of a past famous Astroturf campaign, is when health advocates began winning legislation to raise taxes and increase regulation of smoking in the USA—Phillip Morris, Burson-Marrsteller, and other tobacco interests created the “National Smokers Alliance” (NSA) in 1993. The NSA and other tobacco interests initiated an aggressive public relations campaign from 1994-1999 in an effort to exaggerate the appearance of grassroots support for smoker’s rights.
The anti-Burzynski/Antineoplastons groups who call themselves “The Skeptics” work the same way. They are paid by third party interest groups, that appear to be unrelated to the industry itself, in an effort to destroy or at least stall the progress of Antineoplastons. Upon closer scrutiny, you will find that they do not practice the act of being “Skeptical” at all—instead they hide behind the label while furthering a predetermined agenda. Beware of any group that labels itself after a preexisting attribute of the human condition.
The reality is, if Antineoplastons were placed on the market for any type of cancer—anyone would be able to gain access to it under the FDA’s “Off label” clause. This would be permanently and detrimentally damaging to the cancer industry, as most any cancer patient who has experienced a failed surgery, or has an inoperable cancer would inevitably choose Antineoplastons over conventional toxic therapy, simply for quality of life issues. Also, since the patents on Antineoplastons have been around for a long time, they would only hold a 7-year exclusive patent upon reaching market before becoming a generic drug (like most antibiotics). Even if PhRMA were to purchase Antineoplastons for distribution, it would destroy their company along with all other competing companies, upon the medicines reaching “generic status”.
The industry also profits greatly from all the anti-inflammatory medications, anti-nausea medications, anti-depressants, and more that are given as a standard to many cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy and radiation. The issue of Antineoplastons is merely a market issue, not a scientific one. Creating an aggressive Astroturf campaign is one of the final stages of defense when an industry is trying to preserve a monopolistic advantage over the market.
Overall, you need to be able to think for yourself. Question everything, including this author and this film. Feel free to verify all sources used for this film for yourself via the Sourced Transcript [link]. You will notice the Astroturf campaign related to the “anti-Burzynski bloggers” refuse to do that or adhere to reputable sources. Their paid position is to prey on desperate cancer patients and families of cancer patients by misleading their readers about Burzynski and his invention. This is a natural course of history when scientific innovation like this occurs, and is something that is to be expected. Never underestimate the irrationality of the human brain when it is confronted with something it doesn’t understand. These Astroturf bloggers have an agenda, and are not open to any rational discourse whatsoever.
Our society is built on propaganda wars, and wars of information and disinformation. The fact that most people will basically believe anything they are told without bothering to find out if what they are told is true or not—makes them for easy prey, especially when they are dying of cancer. The writers of the “anti-Burzynski” bloggers know this—and take full advantage of this. That is the entire goal of the “anti-Burzynski” Astroturf campaign.
* These people are covered in the new 2013 release of Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II.
Much more to come. Please check back often, or sign up for email updates.
“The transition from a paradigm in crisis to a new one from which a new tradition of normal science can emerge is far from a cumulative process, one achieved by an articulation or extension of the old paradigm. Rather it is a reconstruction of the field from new fundamentals, a reconstruction that changes some of the field’s most elementary theoretical generalizations as well as many of its paradigm methods and applications. During the transition period there will be a large but never complete overlap between the problems that can be solved by the old and by the new paradigm. But there will also be a decisive difference in the modes of solution. When the transition is complete, the profession will have changed its view of the field, its methods, and its goals.” – Thomas Kuhn, author of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
–
It’s about their loss of control and authority
over a highly profitable share of the market.”
– Eric Merola, 2013 –
