Tag Archives: Science Based

Jessica Ressel-Doeden – Inoperable Diffuse Intrinsic Brainstem Glioma (DIPG) – Cured with Medical Records

Sunday, 09 August 2015 23:53
Written by
0 Comments

Jessica Ressel-Doeden was diagnosed with a diffuse, intrinsic, childhood brainstem glioma (DIPG) in March of 1996 at age eleven.

According to the available data there has not been a single case of a verified cure (5-year survival) with patients diagnosed with diffuse (inoperable) childhood brainstem glioma treated with radiation and/or chemotherapy in any FDA-supervised experimental clinical trial in the history of medicine. Dr. Burzynski’s Antineoplastons hold the only cures to date—with a cure rate in some studies as high as 27.5% [PDF of original report, table page 172] + [Chemo/Rad – PubMed 2005] [ANP – PubMed 2003] [ANP – PubMed 2006] [ANP – Cancer Therapy 2007]

[The Lancet 2006 explains grim outlook – “survival remains static”].

** April 2014 Peer-reviewed clinical trial report for DIPG using Antineoplastons **

Following her initial diagnosis, the Ressel’s were informed that the only method approved by the FDA to “treat” her condition would be radiation. The radiologist informed the family that radiation would be shot “through the ears, burning her healthy cells from the outside in—causing permanent deafness, all of the hair around her ears would be gone—never grow back, her ears would become deformed and burnt, her pituitary gland would be destroyed—the gland that allows a human to grow and develop, and if she survived the treatment she would become a vegetable and incapable of taking care of herself.”

Considering that radiation treatment has never been shown to cure a single patient with her condition, combined with the devastating side effects such a treatment would inflict on an eleven-year old child—her parents declined the radiation treatment offered by her oncologists and decided to have Jessica treated by Dr. Burzynski instead.

Medical Records

1. Diagnosis: Jessica underwent an MRI on April 10, 1996 at the St. Louis Children’s Hospital which revealed a tumor in her brainstem. Her diagnosis was also confirmed on May 7, 1996 upon initial consultation with Dr. Burzynski. She had multiple MRIs after she was admitted into the Burzynski Clinic. There is also multiple third-party confirmations of diagnosis by physicians from the Springfield Clinic and the Missouri Eye Institute demonstrated by letters written to the Ressel’s insurance company.

2. Recovery: On May 8, 1996, Jessica began antineoplaston treatment. Her tumor disappeared and reappeared multiple times throughout the course of 14 months after the start date of treatment. On June 27, 1997, her tumor disappeared permanently. She has had multiple MRIs of the brain since that time which have all been negative for tumor recurrence—with the last MRI being May 20, 2005. Read Jessica’s treatment summary here. Read Jessica’s tumor measurements here. After her full recovery, the Mid-Atlantic Open MRI of Springfield, MO confirmed her tumor-free MRIs from 11/97 to 5/98 [PDF all medical records and sources for this paragraph].

3. FDA-supervised clinical trial data comparing chemotherapy and radiation treatment to antineoplaston treatment in patients with diffuse, intrinsic, childhood brainstem glioma. It has been clearly demonstrated that of 107 patients treated with chemotherapy and radiation with this type of tumor: 0.9% of these patients were cancer-free at the end of treatment, with no patient surviving 5 years after diagnosis. Of the patients treated with antineoplastons with this type of tumor: 27.5% of them were cancer-free at the end of treatment, with 27.5% of the patients living at least 5 years after diagnosis. Therefore, Jessica Ressel’s recovery after being treated with antineoplastons is not a mere anecdotal case (See sources from start of this post above).

Most would assume that such results would be front page news across the world, or would be grounds for Dr. Burzynski to receive the Nobel Prize in medicine. Sadly, these peer-reviewed results have been universally ignored by mainstream medicine.

Raising the Money to Receive Her Antineoplaston Treatment

Unfortunately, most insurance companies will not cover antineoplaston treatment. The Ressel family had to come up with $6000 per month to pay for her treatment all by themselves. The high cost of antineoplaston treatment is directly due to the United States government’s refusal to allow any tax-payer money to be granted to fund the FDA-supervised clinical trials that Jessica participated in—while simultaneously granting PhRMA tens of millions of dollars to fund similar FDA-supervised clinical trials with inferior outcomes.

Below is a TV news footage montage from 1996-1997 covering Jessica’s story, fundraisers and more:

The Ronald McDonald House Charities®

During our interview with the Ressel family, Robin said that she “had called the Ronald McDonald House to see if we’d be able to stay there, because we were going to have to stay in Houston for a while, I was talking to a volunteer on the phone—when I mentioned we had an eleven-year old we were taking to see Dr. Burzynski and we needed a place to stay for a couple of weeks—you could hear whispering going on in the background, the volunteer was being prompted what to say, and The Ronald McDonald House refused to allow us to stay there because we weren’t an M.D. Anderson patient. I felt bad for the volunteer, you could tell she was being told what to say.” Dan followed up by saying “There are a lot of programs out there, but I will never give a dime to the Ronald McDonald House. We were in a desperate situation, and they refused us because we were a patient of Dr. Burzynski”.

Joining the Fight in Preserving Burzynski’s Freedom

Jessica Ressel was being treated by Dr. Burzynski in 1996, several months after the FDA’s 5th grand jury against Dr. Burzynski resulted in an indictment. “The government was more frustrating than the cancer itself.” The Ressel family traveled to Washington DC to meet hundreds of other Burzynski patients to speak out against the FDA’s attempt to remove him from society.

Family Speaks Out

Jessica Ressel’s medical records are published by written authorization by Jessica Ressel-Doeden.


Lt. Col. James Treadwell – Glioblastoma Multiforme Grade IV – Cured with Medical Records – brain cancer

Sunday, 09 August 2015 23:01
Written by
0 Comments


James Treadwell was diagnosed with a Glioblastoma Multiforme Grade IV brain tumor in 2004. He has been cancer-free since 2006. An MRI performed in 2010 has confirmed that he is still cancer-free today.

#1 Diagnosis: Pathologists performed a biopsy at the Naval Medical Center in San Diego, CA establishing his diagnosis [PDF]. A second opinion was sought at the UCLA Medical Center which also verified his diagnosis [PDF]. See the Baseline MRI: 9/22/2004 [view image].

#2 Prior Treatment: Prior to Antineoplaston treatment, James Treadwell underwent two surgeries (craniotomies), a Gliadel wafter placement, six weeks of standard radiation treatment (from June 22 to August 4, 2004), three cycles of Temodar® chemotherapy (from June 23 to August 20, 2004). None of these treatments cured Mr. Treadwell of his cancer. In fact, after the second surgery no residual cancer was found, and after the course of radiation and chemotherapy his cancer had returned and doubled in size by September 14, 2004.

#3 Recovery: After two surgeries, a Gliadel wafer, and 6 weeks of both chemotherapy and radiation failed to rid Mr. Treadwell of his brain cancer—on September 24, 2004 James Treadwell was admitted for administration of Antineoplaston treatment. He did not receive any other treatment other than Antineoplaston treatment after September 24, 2004. On November 30, 2006 his cancer was gone [PDF of tumor measurements]. [PDF of ANP treatment summary]; [11/30/2006 MRI image]; [11/2008 MRI image].

#4 Treating Glioblastoma Multiforme Grade IV without Antineoplastons. In 2010, some German scientists have admitted total defeat: “For patients with relapsed GBM [Glioblastoma Multiforme] there is currently no standard systemic therapy.”

The New England Journal of Medicine Published a study from 2005 stated: “Glioblastoma, the most common primary brain tumor in adults, is usually rapidly fatal. The current standard of care for newly diagnosed glioblastoma is surgical resection to the extent feasible, followed by adjuvant radiotherapy. In this trial we compared radiotherapy alone with radiotherapy plus temozolomide [Temodar®], given concomitantly with and after radiotherapy, in terms of efficacy and safety.” This is the same treatment Mr. Treadwell received prior to being treated with Antineoplastons.

It should be noted that Senator Ted Kennedy died of Glioblastoma Grade IV brain cancer. Countless Glioblastoma survivors cured by Antineoplastons as well as many other people cured of other types of cancer due to Antineoplastons flooded Kennedy’s office to share with him the existence of Antineoplastons. Mr. Kennedy’s wife wrote the Burzynski’s Clinic requesting all communication from Antineoplaston treated cancer survivors stop contacting his office entirely. A year later, Kennedy was dead. Lt. Col. James Treadwell’s medical records are published by written authorization by Lt. Col. James Treadwell.

Sophia Gettino – Pinealoblastoma – Cured with Medical Records

Saturday, 08 August 2015 00:21
Written by
0 Comments

Sophia Gettino Pinealoblastoma Cured


Sophia Gettino was diagnosed with a pinealoblastoma brain tumor on December 18, 1996—when she was 10 months old. [1]

Sophia was born in January 1996. In December of 1996, Sophia’s parents noticed that she was having trouble with her motor skills, displaying a decrease in appetite, and had noticeable swelling of the head.

After several visits to the pediatrician’s office, they decided to have an MRI conducted to see if anything was wrong with her brain. The MRI revealed a mass measuring nearly 3 cm in her brain. On December 18, 1996 a biopsy was performed by the pathology department at the Syracuse Health Center in Syracuse, New York—which diagnosed Sophia with a deadly pinealoblastoma brain tumor.

On December 20, 1996 surgeons at the Syracuse Health Center removed nearly all of her tumor, but were unable to remove it all without injuring Sophia any further.

In their evaluation report oncologists at Syracuse stated “Because of her age, short onset of symptoms and pathologic findings, her prognosis unfortunately is very poor. The option of chemotherapy was presented to the family.”

The chemotherapy offered to Sophia was a combination of thiotepa, etoposide, and carboplatine.

Thiotepa Chemotherapy was approved by the FDA on March 9, 1959. This drug was approved for breast, ovary, and bladder cancer primarily. To date, thiotepa’s “safety and effectiveness in pediatric patients have not been established.” The expected side effects of this chemotherapy in non-pediatric patients are: low blood cell count, vomiting, infertility, hair loss, blurred vision, and being a carcinogen causes more cancer.

Etoposide Chemotherapy was approved by the FDA on November 11, 1983. This drug is used to treat people with testicular cancer or small cell lung cancer. In pediatric patients, etoposide’s “safety and efficacy have not been established”. The side effects in non-pediatric patients receiving this therapy include leukemia, nerve damage, inability to fight infections, and vomiting. There is limited evidence to verify whether or not this drug used alone causes more cancer, but there is sufficient evidence that when used with other chemotherapy that is does cause cancer.

Carboplatine Chemotherapy was approved in the late 1980’s and is primarily used to treat ovarian, lung, and head and neck cancers. “the most troubling effects of carboplatin tends to be damage to the bone marrow…” Other side effects include damage to the nervous system, mouth sores, loss of appetite, stomach pain, diarrhea, vomiting, and changes in vision.

After understanding that these chemotherapeutic drugs would not likely save Sophia, combined with the side effects this chemotherapy regimen could cause to their daughter, Sophia’s parents declined all chemotherapy treatment offered by their oncologists and decided to explore other methods of treatment. Upon this search for another option they found the Burzynski Clinic.

On February 27, 1997 Sophia was admitted for antineoplaston therapy in a FDA-supervised Phase II clinical trial. She discontinued antineoplaston therapy on March 7, 2003 due to a complete response. She is alive, healthy, and remains cancer-free today. (A residual, benign tumor is still left in her brain, but all signs of malignancy have disappeared and have not returned to date).

Medical Records

Diagnosis:
1. December 18, 1996 pathology report from Syracuse Health Center.
2. December 25, 1996 Syracuse Health oncology evaluation report verifying diagnosis, with suggested experimental chemotherapy regimen.
Baseline MRI of the brain on February 26, 1997 showing a massive tumor in her brain.

Recovery:
4. Sophia’s Phase II FDA-clinical trial treatment summary
5. Tumor Measurements from start of treatment to declaration of “complete response”.
6. A third party confirmation of complete response from J.C. Pleasure, MD of Oncoimaging, P.A. in Herdon, VA
7. February 3, 2003 MRI scan showing the residual benign remnants of the once malignant tumor.

Comparing the FDA clinical trial data for this type of tumor

In a group of Phase II clinical trials using only Antineoplastons, with 13 children ranging from one to eleven years old with PNET tumors: Six of those patients (46%) survived more than 5 years after treatment. Five of the six patients had not undergone any previous chemotherapy or radiation prior to being treated with Antineoplastons. Click here to read this study’s abstract.

In contrast, a chemotherapy drug produced by GlaxoSmithKline called Topotecan (also a gene-targeted drug), is undergoing Phase II trials for this type of tumor in children as well. Twenty-six children were treated, two objective responses were noted (7.6%), and these two patients managed to live beyond five years. However, this does not indicate the damage, if any, this chemotherapeutic drug caused these patients. Click here to read this study.

Therefore, in virtually identical Phase II gene-targeted clinical trials treating PNET in children: topotecan chemotherapy resulted in a 7.6% 5-year survival; while Antineoplastons resulted a 46% 5-year survival. It’s important to note that while Antineoplastons are free of harmful side effects, topotecan’s side effects generally include: hair loss, vomiting, and diarrhea—if you are lucky. If you are one that has a more severe reaction to this drug, the side effects can include: difficulty breathing; swelling of the face, lips and tongue; severe cough; painful urination, unexplained bruising, and stomach cramps. Click here more on this drug.

Sophia Gettino’s medical records are published by written authorization by her family.

Jodi Fenton – Anaplastic Astrocytoma Grade III cured – Medical Records

Thursday, 06 August 2015 23:50
Written by
0 Comments




Jodi was diagnosed with an inoperable grade III anaplastic astrocytoma brain tumor on May 15, 2000.

Following her initial diagnosis, her neuroncologists in Los Angeles told her that the standard protocol for someone with her condition is to undergo Temodar®, which is a chemotherapy, followed by a course of radiation. Unfortunately, according to the clinical trials performed that allowed the FDA-approval of Temodar®, the average expected life span of someone with this type of brain cancer using Temodar® is around 13.6 months.

After weighing her options, she declined chemotherapy and radiation treatment and choose antineoplaston treatment instead. One month after starting antineoplaston treatment her cancer was gone. She has been free of cancer ever since.

Very often, when a story like this is shared with most medical professionals who are unfamiliar with antineoplaston treatment, they usually respond in three ways: #1: She was never diagnosed with cancer to begin with. #2 Any treatment she had before starting antineoplaston treatment is likely what actually cured her. #3: Even if it is true, it proves nothing as it’s merely a single anecdotal case.

Medical Records

Note: Jodi’s records are labeled as Jodi “Gold”, which is her maiden name. Jodi was married in 2005 with Dr. Burzynski in attendance. Jodi is now known as Jodi Fenton.

#1 Diagnosis & Recovery – Jodi’s MRI medical records establishing the presence of a mass in the brain. Jodi’s medial records establishing final diagnosis through biopsy. Jodi’s MRI medical records showing her recovery one month after starting treatment. Dr. Burzynski also had a board-certified radiologist from a third-party review and confirm Jodi’s records [PDF of full records and sources for this paragraph].

#2 Prior Treatment – Jodi Fenton has not received any chemotherapy or radiation treatment to date.

#3 FDA-supervised clinical trial data comparing chemotherapy and radiation treatment to antineoplaston treatment in patients with anaplastic astrocytoma. According to FDA-supervised clinical trial data treating anaplastic astrocytoma patients, only 9% of those undergoing chemotherapy and radiation treatment were cancer-free at the end of treatment [PDF page 5]. Clinical trial data treating patients with this condition using Temodar® chemotherapy alone found only 8% of patients were cancer-free after treatment [PDF]. However, these results do not guarantee anyone living a normal healthy life after being subjected to these treatments. The chemotherapy treatment Temodar® offered to Jodi can result in serious debilitating side effects [PDF] or even death [PDF]. Additionally, the concomitant radiation therapy that was offered to Jodi carries the risk of brain necrosis, a condition in which radiation therapy permanently destroys the tissues of the brain, often ending in death one or two years after treatment.

Likewise, according to FDA-supervised clinical trial data treating this type of cancer using only antineoplastons, 25% were cancer-free at the end of treatment, with most of them going on to live normal healthy lives—free of harmful side effects. Therefore, Jodi Fenton’s recovery from this type of cancer after being treated with antineoplastons is not a mere anecdotal case [PDF].

Bristol-Myers Squibb’s Tour Of Hope

One of Jodi’s biggest passions is road bicycling. After Jodi was cured and returned to riding regularly, in 2003 she applied to the Bristol-Myers Squibb Tour of Hope bicycle tour hosted by Lance Armstrong – and was one of 26 people chosen to participate in a cross country bicycle tour to promote awareness for participating in clinical trials and cancer research. When being interviewed for a spot on the team she was never asked where she was treated.

Considering how remarkable Jodi’s story is, Bristol-Myers Squibb placed Jodi infull page ads in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and USA Today to promote the ride. She was interviewed along side Lance Armstrong on CNN.

Jodi was soon contacted by a nationwide publication to tell her story (who’s name will not be revealed). During the initial phone interview with this publication, Jodi told the reporter she was treated with antineoplastons at the Burzynski Clinic. The reporter never called her back. Two weeks later Jodi called the reporter back to follow up, the reporter simply told her “we aren’t going to run the story.” Jodi has inferred that the reason they decided not to run her story is because she was treated at the Burzynski Clinic.

Jodi was indeed cured in a clinical trial involving new cancer research. However, she was cured using antineoplastons—not a treatment that Bristol-Myers Squibb distributes or any treatment that is produced and distributed by any of the major pharmaceutical companies.

Watch an extra clip of our interview with Jodi talking about the Bristol Myers Squibb Tour Of Hope experience.

Jodi Fenton’s medical records are published by written authorization by Jodi Fenton.

1992 JAMA article and rebuttal

Thursday, 06 August 2015 23:39
Written by
0 Comments

Click on the blue text within the article to view the sources used.

Today, the health care industry accounts for over 17% of our GDP. Which means, the more unhealthy our population, the more healthy our economy. One of the ways to maintain this profitable momentum is to manipulate the scientific literature.

Tampering with scientific truth within the peer-reviewed scientific literature is not a new problem in our society, in fact it has become the norm the past few decades. Whether it be ghostwriters writing fake favorable journal articles for medicines that the industry knows doesn’t work or to their hide deadly side effects (remember Vioxx Dodgball?: read Dr. David Graham’s testimony; CNN dodgeball article), the reason for doing this is to preserve the profitable gain within the industry. Even when these institutions are caught in the act and are forced to pay fines and settlements for these actions, this establishment always comes out ahead financially. Tampering with the truth within the scientific literature is a staple ingredient of economics 101. It’s a proven method of increasing profits. Since cancer treatment takes in $90 billion annually, that’s a big piece of a pie they need to preserve.

This type of underhanded strategy can also take the form of medical school professors themselves who are hired by the pharmaceutical industry to advertise their drugs to their medical students. One of countless examples was exposed by medical students at Harvard in 2009.

These tactics serve not only to exaggerate drug effectiveness or cover up dangers of drugs on the market, but can also be used to trick the medical professional or layman researching new competing treatments—such as Antineoplastons—into coming up with a conclusion that may not be the scientific truth.

Former Editor-In-Chief for the New England Journal of Medicine recently stated, “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine. [link to article]

There are two major peer-reviewed articles in medical literature that are often cited by the unsuspecting medical professional as “proof” that there is no evidence that Antineoplaston treatment is an effective treatment against cancer.

Sadly, both of these articles betray the laws of the very scientific method the scientists writing them were taught to respect. The first is covered in the documentary—the National Cancer Institute-sponsored clinical trials published in 1999; and the second is an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association entitled “Antineoplastons: An Unproven Therapy”. published in 1992.

At the time of the publication of JAMA’s “Antineoplastons: An Unproven Therapy” Dr. Burzynski was facing a barrage of federal grand juries at the federal level, as well as numerous court appearances at the state level trying to remove his medical license. All of which ended in no finding of fault on Burzynski’s behalf. In 1995, Burzynski was indicted in the 5th federal grand jury. Once of the players in this indictment was the insurance company Aetna, which has a long history of battling Burzynski. Even to this day, Aetna calls Burzynski’s treatment “auto-urine therapy” or, urinating into a cup and drinking it.

In the usual tactic as many in the past and present have utilized, one of the scientists and paid consultants participating in litigation against Burzynski (Zol Consultants) named Saul Green, PhD wrote an elaborate but sloppy propaganda hit piece in an attempt to discredit Burzynski’s discovery and treatment in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1992. Mr. Green, who is now deceased, is also the co-author of the infamous “Quackwatch” who’s other co-founder Stephen Barrett has endured and lost lawsuits for slander and lying.

Another scientist employed by the United States government at this time who has hired to independently study the toxicity and efficacy of Antineoplastons took it upon himself to write his own rebuttal to what he found as a slew of “misrepresentations”, “scare-tactics”, “half-truths”, “ignoring of clinical data”, and the usual findings while investigating other dishonest attempts at manipulating scientific data.

SOURCE: You can read the original JAMA article, with Dr. Burzynski’s “letter to the editor” rebuttal as well as the independent rebuttal in a complete PDF by clicking here.

MORE:

SOURCE: Read a 1992 letter from the Antineoplaston Study Group at Kurume University in Japan documenting their communication with Saul Green.

SOURCE: Read a 1992 letter from the Vice President and Director of Research for Mutual Benefit Life Insurance, Robert Maver, to the Editor of JAMA—who addresses JAMA’s severe flaws in the article.

SOURCE: Read a 1992 letter from Edwin Bransome Jr. MD of the Medical College in Georgia to the Editor of JAMA, addressing the misleading nature of this article.

SOURCE: Read a 1992 letter from Paul Scharff, MD to the Editor of JAMA, addressing the misleading nature of this article.

SOURCE, Mr. Green’s Resume: Saul Green, PhD is not even a medical doctor – click here for his resume and proof of employment at Zol Consultants.