Burzynski, the Movie is the story of a medical doctor and Ph.D biochemist named Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski who won the largest, and possibly the most convoluted and intriguing legal battle against the Food & Drug Administration in American history.
This documentary takes the audience through the treacherous, yet victorious, 14-year journey both Dr. Burzynski and his patients have had to endure in order to obtain FDA-approved clinical trials of Antineoplastons.
Dr. Burzynski resides and practices medicine in Houston, Texas. He was able to initially produce and administer his discovery without FDA-approval from 1977-1995 because the state of Texas at this time did not require that Texas physicians be required to adhere to Federal law in this situation. This law has since been changed.
As with anything that changes current-day paradigms, Burzynski’s ability to successfully treat incurable cancer with such consistency has baffled the industry. Ironically, this fact had prompted numerous investigations by the Texas Medical Board, who relentlessly took Dr. Burzynski as high as the state supreme court in their failed attempt to halt his practices.
To watch the movie: http://vimeo.com/24821365
Read more: http://www.burzynskimovie.com/
Note: My wife and I had a wonderful opportunity to meet Dr. Burzynski and his wife (also a doctor) when we visited Houston, Texas, two years ago.
A recent study published by the Journal of General Internal Medicine reported a 10 percent spike in teaching hospital deaths during the month of July due to medical errors. We call this spike “The July Effect” and we attribute it to the influx of new interns and residents.
Typically, medical students graduate in June and begin their first year of residency training — internship — in July. This group of eager new interns invades the hospital to learn, care for patients, and make medical decisions. One problem. They don’t know what they’re doing.
The Economist of 26 May 2011 had an article entitled: The costly war on cancer – New cancer drugs are technically impressive. But must they cost so much? http://www.economist.com/node/18743951?story_id=18743951
The article says:
- CANCER is not one disease. It is many. Yet oncologists have long used the same blunt weapons to fight different types of cancer: cut the tumour out, zap it with radiation or blast it with chemotherapy that kills good cells as well as bad ones.
- The snag, from society’s point of view, is that all these drugs are horribly expensive.
- Not all these new drugs work.
- In December the FDA said that Avastin’s side effects outweighed its meagre impact on breast cancer.
- More generally, some people reckon that new cancer drugs offer small benefits at an exorbitant price.
- Provenge (for advanced prostate cancer) costs $93,000 for a course of treatment and extends life by an average of four months.
- Yervoy (for melanoma, a kind of skin cancer) costs $120,000 for three-and-a-half months. Some patients live much longer, which fuels demand for the drugs. But others spend a lot and get little.
- Who will reform this unsustainable system?
- Last year Gleevec grossed $4.3 billion. Roche’s Herceptin (the HER2 drug) and Avastin did even better: $6 billion and $7.4 billion respectively.
My comment: At the end of it all – it is about making huge profit at the expense of helpless cancer victims.
See also this article:
Dissecting Chemotherapy Part 4: How Much Is Life Worth? Erbitux for Lung Cancer
Only dead fish flow with the stream
In this world we see many fish. Most of what we see or know of are dead fish. Dead fish don’t flow against the current. They just float down with the stream. Drs. Graeme Morgan, Robyn Ward and Michael Barton of Australia (see Part 2 & 3 of this article) are no dead fish – they flow against the stream. I salute them for having the guts to speak up.
Drs Tito Fojo and Christine Grady in the USA appear to swim against the current too. They wrote an interesting paper: How much is life worth: Cetuximab, non-small cell lung cancer and the $440 billion question. The first author is from the Medical Oncology Branch of the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, USA, while Dr. Grady is from the Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, USA.
Read more: http://cancercaremalaysia.com/2011/05/27/dissecting-chemotherapy-part-4-how-much-is-life-worth-erbitux-for-lung-cancer/
Mobile phone users may be at increased risk from brain cancer and should use texting and free-hands devices to reduce exposure, the World Health Organisation’s cancer experts said.
Radio-frequency electromagnetic fields generated by such devices are “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) announced at the end of an eight-day meeting in Lyon, France.
Experts “reached this classification based on review of the human evidence coming from epidemiological studies” pointing to an increased incidence of glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, said Jonathan Samet, president of the work group.
Two studies in particular, the largest conducted over the last decade, showed a higher risk “in those that had the most intensive use of such phones,” he said in a telephone news conference.
Some individuals tracked in the studies had used their phones for an average of 30 minutes per day over a period of 10 years.
“We simply don’t know what might happen as people use their phones over longer time periods, possibly over a lifetime,” Samet said.
There are about five billion mobile phones registered in the world. The number of phones and the average time spent using them have both climbed steadily in recent years.