One year after starting Dr. Brzezinski's treatment, UCLA pronounced me in remission. Dr. Brzezinski saved my life, and for that, he is facing 300 years in a federal penitentiary. Perhaps Dr. Brzezinski has found the medical breakthrough of the century.
Certainly a wealth of empirical data hints at that possibility, but how will we ever know if the FDA succeeds in quashing it? The FDA has raided Dr. Brzezinski's clinic enough times now that they should have been able to prove any legitimate charges they may have had against him. The relentless stress the FDA has put Dr. Brzezinski's patients through is unforgivable. The FDA has convened four grand juries, none of which returned an indictment. Finally, five days after this body pressed David Kessler for answers on retaliatory actions against Dr. Brzezinski, guess what?
He was indicted. Well, FDA's initiatives that you announced today expedite the current review of anti-neoplastons treatments. I don't want to get into any particular... agent.
Isn't part of your problem that the treatment of cancer is a very profitable industry for a lot of companies and that your treatment right now will eat into those companies profits? Bingo. I'd like the following questions to be asked the FDA. How much money have they spent in the last 10 years to try to put Dr. Brzezinski out of business?
How many documents can they subpoena and how many more grand juries does he have to go to? And why can't patients who have advanced cancer seek the medical? treatment of their choice.
The issue of whether antineoplastons work may not even come up during the trial. The judge says that's not relevant. You voted to acquit?
To acquit, absolutely. Not guilty. Not guilty. I vote for acquittal. I voted my mind and my heart.
I do not believe that Dr. Brzezinski is a criminal. And I had voted to acquit. Brzezinski's victory has resulted in the American government abandoning their initial attempt to hijack these medicines. after they filed 11 patents of an already existing antineoplaston compound by recruiting and colluding with one of Brzezinski's own research scientists.
Now entering a new chapter, and against all odds, antineoplastons have successfully completed a series of Food and Drug Administration-sanctioned Phase II clinical trials. Now the therapy is about to be tested in what's called a Phase 3 trial, a massive experiment involving potentially hundreds of brain cancer patients worldwide. Dr. Stanislaw Brzezinski is presently the first and only scientist in United States history to enter the federal drug approval process for a proprietary cancer therapy without any financial support from the American government, the pharmaceutical industry, or the cancer establishment.
As of the year 2013, only 10% of the patients that seek Brzezinski's therapy are allowed to receive antineoplastons due to strictly imposed federal government sanctions that limit who is and who is not allowed to receive them. Before we got to the clinic, we didn't know what Laura would be prescribed with. We were hoping she would get antineoplastons.
But they did say to us, we're not going to know until you arrive, and we submit all your medical records to the FDA. They'll determine whether they're going to approve Laura for treatment or not. The patients that wish to receive antineoplaston Neoplastons are required to go through a rigorous review process by America's Food and Drug Administration, which generally requires proof that chemotherapy and radiation have first failed the patient before being allowed access to anti-neoplastons.
So we got back from getting the biopsy result and I straightaway found the clinic and told them what Laura's tumor was and he said look I'm really sorry but you... It's a clinical trial and there's criteria. Laura's going to have to have had radiotherapy or chemotherapy first and failed that. I said to him, that's crazy, what do you mean failed that first? I said, we're UK citizens, does it matter that we're not Americans?
Do we still come under the same law? And he said, yeah, you'll be on US soil when you arrive. The clinic's on US soil, we have to adhere to this. But you said, let's just get on with it. Get on with it, yeah.
I went for the six weeks radiotherapy. I did ten days of the chemotherapy, the Temidor, and I was violently sick. Even if the FDA's prerequisite is fulfilled, the FDA holds full dictatorial rights to refuse patients access to the medicine if they choose.
The doctors have told us basically there is no cure. By contrast... Dr. Brzezinski, we have found out, has cured several people with myeloma, which means that this is a better prospect for us just statistically. The problem is that the FDA, in its wisdom, will not allow us to be treated with the adenoplastins.
We have asked the FDA what is different about my case, why I don't get an exemption. We don't have a response yet to that. to that question. They're not going to allow Pat to be treated by the clinic that has the technology to possibly save her life.
Upon the mapping of the human genome, dozens of new gene-targeted medications were developed and released by the pharmaceutical industry. Working in tandem with the quickly expanding assortment of various gene-targeted medications constantly becoming more available, Brzezinski's team has been widening their research since the 1990s by utilizing this new technology and thus inventing an additional technique of cancer treatment as a brand new alternative for his patients. Brzezinski defines this new technique as personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy, in which the remaining 90% of Brzezinski's cancer patients are enrolled. They are prescribed a personalized recipe of commercial medications, which does not involve the original antineoplaston invention. Personalized treatment is designed for individual patients.
It's coming from understanding that cancer is not just a single disease. Cancer is perhaps half a million of different molecular diseases. This means that every patient needs to be treated individually, if you like to be successful, and if you like to... avoid bad adverse reactions.
This means that you need to identify what is causing cancer in the UL patients, and we know that cancer is caused by abnormal genes at this time. It is necessary to identify abnormal genes. And then it is necessary to identify the medications which will work on these genes and use them in combination, knowing that some patients may not tolerate such combination well. Again, there's a way to identify based on genomic studies if the patients are good candidates from the viewpoint of adverse reactions. And the way that we do that here is by evaluating the genetic makeup of your cancer.
We've benefited from using Karis Life Sciences Labs. Phoenix, Arizona, who will essentially do a full genomics study of what makes your cancer your cancer. Basically, they will run the analysis on the entire cancerous genome of 24,000 genes. We are not treating, for instance, quote-unquote large cell lung cancer.
We are treating the combination of genes which are causing this cancer. The lens that is a lot down of a stain, those are the ones the sensor was taking. Chris was diagnosed with stage one colon cancer.
None of these These commercial drugs that the Brzezinski Clinic prescribed him were approved by the FDA to treat stage 1 colon cancer. The Brzezinski Clinic prescribed Chris these three medications off-label based on the findings of his genetic profile, having nothing whatsoever to do with what these drugs were granted market approval for. Then my daughter called me and said, there's no tumor. Can you believe how? It started in less than three months.
And my tumor was gone. And just three months earlier, I was saying it was all over. The fact that... we got rid of his cancer at this time.
It's great, okay? But obviously this would be criticized by standard oncology because they would say, well, this patient should receive standard of care, which means surgery, then combination. of chemotherapy.
One of the interesting things around here is that when the drug reps do come to present either a lunch or a talk about their medications, they often ask us what it is that we're doing with their medications and they'll gladly sit and listen and obviously understand the mechanisms of their medications but then they get really perked up when we start telling them about the other cancers that Dr. Brzezinski is freely using their medications against. Every doctor we've seen has said there is no cure for myocardial cell cancer. Yeah. It's like, too bad, you know.
You might as well get your papers in order and, you know, pick out your funeral home, make sure you've got a burial. lot and all this stuff. Mrs. Wright was 66 years of age when she originally consulted with me in July of 2005. At that time, she had had a biopsy of a mass on the left side of the face. which identified Merkel cell carcinoma. In a series of five surgeries, we attempted to remove this cancer and provide her some attempted cure of her cancer.
We had provided good surgical procedures for her, but without lasting result. So we were like, okay, what do we do next? And in our head and neck tumor board in our medical center, here, we decided that she would benefit by the administration of radiation therapy. And so we went over to the radiation, and so they did one sequence of radiation on it, and then that didn't stop it. Didn't do a thing for it.
It was my understanding that at that time, she and her husband did some internet work and went online and found Dr. Brzezinski in Houston, Texas, after which time he offered her a protocol that involved sutin. Soutent has not been granted market approval to treat Merkel cell cancer. In fact, there are not any drugs granted market approval by the FDA to treat Merkel cell cancer.
And the tumors under here and the tumors here and all this was gone. And the part back here, they were just flat gone. I think he's out of the box and that's what Mrs. Wright needed.
She needed some fresh ideas. And that's what has resulted in her success, is that someone took a chance, applied an off-label use to a medication that's used every day in our cancer center, but not necessarily for this. this application and it has shown some lasting benefit to Mrs. Wright's cancer control. It's very exciting.
Yeah, you know, what's interesting is all this stuff is not taught to you in medical school. You know, the medical curriculum that we all go through is very traditional and they don't teach you, you know, my medical education taught me how to think. But... This level of thinking goes one step beyond.
One of the things, too, about Brzezinski's was that some of the first-level doctors coming from different places, different countries, and learning what he's doing. Dr. Sawanabori works with a prestigious university in Japan. He wants to make targeted gene therapy the standard treatment in his country.
His method is very safe. and also very effective. So I'm sure that this is the new strategy of cancer treatment.
The doctors here, before we left, said I had to have hospice. He was committed to a wheelchair or the bed. He could not breathe at all without constant oxygen. When we left, Mark was able to walk. He had no oxygen.
He was a completely stable person. individual. He was no longer dependent on everything.
He's been on it for about a month or so and I mean he looked completely like a different person. He was not in the wheelchair anymore. He was off his oxygen. He was walking. He looked like he's gained weight.
You know all the bulky lymph nodes that you can see from far away in his neck where they were almost completely gone. And he just looked good and he really felt good as well. He was not having much really toxicity at all from that regimen in terms of nausea, vomiting, low blood counts, he was just doing very, very well.
And after we are confident that the patient is doing well, there are no side effects, and there are some initial signs of improvement, the patient can return home under the care of the local oncologist. Looking back into the whole thing, you know, I definitely did not recommend them to go to the Poitin C clinic at the beginning. You know, I did not know much about it.
I didn't know exactly what they were doing over there. And, you know, we're all trained in a... in a certain fashion. We follow FDA-approved chemotherapy and FDA-approved regimen. But after I've seen what he has gone through at the Brudzinski Clinic and the kind of response he's had, I've certainly changed my mind and my opinion about it.
We have to get to the point where chemotherapy has to be custom-made to each patient and not one size fits all. The doctor said, you know, I think this is time where we talk about do not resuscitate papers and, you know, getting them signed. And I just, I wanted to vomit.
And before he could say any more, I just said, I've had enough. I'm out of here. My roommate ended up knowing one of the people who works at the Brzezinski Clinic. We got an appointment and we walked in. At this point, it was in my lungs, my liver, my abdomen, my pelvis, and my femur bone.
So I was on treatment with them from November, I guess end of October, November to December. Went for scans at the end of December, and we got our Christmas miracle. All of my tumors were inactive, and I just, I couldn't believe it.
I mean, my family and I were just, I mean, we were left, I mean, we didn't even know what to say. You know, we were speechless. The Brzezinski Clinic prescribed Lindsay seven different gene-targeted medications to battle her cancer.
All of these medications are manufactured by the pharmaceutical industry and sold to the Brzezinski Clinic. Some of the retail prices for an annual course of these drugs can exceed $100,000 each. Insurance doesn't cover Brzezinski. Since Brzezinski's technique is not widely accepted within mainstream oncology, Most insurance companies will not cover its costs unless it is prescribed directly from the patient's local oncologist. Therefore, most patients must begin therapy at the Brzezinski Clinic and then return home to their local oncologist in hopes that they will agree and adhere to Brzezinski's recipe of medications, allowing full insurance coverage.
I wasn't in a financial spot to be able to afford that, and Brzezinski Clinic tried to find me. Other options, so I had a recommendation and saw a new doctor who had agreed to follow the same regimen that the Brzezinski Clinic was offering me and get in to see this doctor and she just wants me to have chemo. Her thought process was, if you're on seven different medicines, how do you really know what it is that's really working? She thinks... It's not approved necessarily for this, so why do it?
You know, let's go back and let's just do strictly chemo. And that's what I'm afraid of, you know, going back and saying, dang it, you know, had we just continued doing what we were doing. It is impossible to know for certain if Brzezinski's regimen would have saved Lindsay's life.
The only thing that is certain is that Lindsay was declined by her insurance company and her local oncologist, The Opportunity. to find out. If Dr. Brzezinski's treatment is so effective, and so many of his patients say that it is, why then is it not used here at MD Anderson, one of the nation's leading cancer hospitals?
Simple, say doctors here. It doesn't cure cancer. Well, I don't have any evidence that says that's for certain.
Dr. Mari Markman is head of research at MD Anderson. His claims have certainly not reached the level of acceptance in the... medical community. He says there can be lots of explanations why certain patients recover but to say it's because of Brzezinski's treatment you can't say that he says and if there was such proof if it worked you'd be all over it absolutely but Dr. Brzezinski thinks there may be something else at work big institutions may not like being upstaged by an outsider the doctor at MD Anderson disagrees. On January 19th 2011 MD Anderson Cancer Center announced its acceptance of a $150 million grant for cancer research, calling this grant the largest in its history.
To build an entirely new cancer research wing called the Institute for Personalized Cancer Therapy, which will be created to support cancer research. preclinical research and clinical trials in which a patient's tumor biopsy is assayed for abnormal genes and gene products to select therapy with agents targeting the product of those particular abnormal genes. And since 2011 hardly a month has passed without a newspaper or television story describing this new technique. We're talking cure here.
We're not talking management. Right. If you were to have cancer and there was someone else your age, another woman who also had the same type of cancer, the reality is those are two very different cancers still.
And we used a one-shot-fits-all sort of approach to treat this. But in fact, your genetic makeup, your genetic makeup in your tumor would cause a different sort of treatment to take place. And that's what they're focusing in on. We know how to do that already, they say, to map someone's genome, figure out how to treat them. most specifically for them.
It is unclear if these announcements are directly due to Brzezinski pioneering this method 10 years prior, or if it is simply a coincidence. Either way, there are some paralyzing bureaucratic roadblocks that mainstream oncological centers like MD Anderson have not yet faced when announcing this new direction. Namely, the firmly established 60-year-old paradigm of the scientifically controlled clinical trial.
If I had Two combinations of pure compound, neither of them by themselves did anything significant, but you put them together and they did something really dramatic, you know, but alone they wouldn't work. It is impossible to get that approved by the FDA because they don't know how to deal with two things at once. They want to deal with a single pure thing.
They don't have the mechanism for understanding that. In our current clinical trial structure, A university or pharmaceutical company proposes a new cancer therapy for market to a regulatory government agency. In the United States, this would be the FDA. The proposed therapy first goes through a Phase I trial to see if the therapy is safe to administer. If the FDA deems it safe, it graduates into a Phase II trial, which determines if the therapy shows any efficacy.
If efficacy is demonstrated, it then enters a Phase III trial. In a phase 3 trial for advanced cancer therapies, a series of patients who all have the exact same diagnosis are accrued, then split into two groups. Both groups are given the exact same established standard of care, which is generally radiation or chemotherapy, while only one group gets the newly proposed therapy. This is defined as a randomized controlled clinical trial.
If the group who received the newly proposed therapy fares better than the group without, The FDA then releases the therapy to the public and it becomes a new standard of care. If you were trying to do the cocktail where you genetically tested people and knew that you had four or five different drugs, but you knew that this subject needs half as much of that, twice as much of that, the normal amount of that, la la la, and you tried to customize this, if you tried to work that through the current system, it just doesn't fit. It doesn't fit the paradigm.
of what they're used to working with, it's so far outside, I don't think it would work. I mean, I think the treatment would work. I don't think it would work with the system.
I don't think you'd be able to get that approved. It is physically impossible to get a personalized regimen approved when our current clinical trial structure is based exclusively on everyone getting the exact same medicines. Each patient would represent their own clinical trial, thus defining each patient's outcome as merely anecdotal. And then the problem comes how to really combine the treatments, use for instance five or six medications together, if each of these treatments is produced by different pharmaceutical companies which would like to get rid of each other. They are not willing to cooperate with each other, they would like to put out of business each other.
So that's why in the United States it would take enormous time to bring this to surface, to bring this to the approval. On the other hand, big institutions, big cancer centers, They are very slow, they are tremendously bureaucratic. The project needs to go from one committee to another.
It will take forever to approve it, and these are small steps. Many oncologists don't understand how these medicines work. For instance, a year ago we would be questioned, why did you use Herceptin for the treatment of stomach cancer? It has been approved only for the breast cancer. But then, now, Herceptin is approved for the treatment of...
stomach cancer by the FDA. Why? Because it works on the gene which is also involved in stomach cancer, not in everybody, but in a good number of patients.
So what we used, for instance, a year ago was right. So that's a very difficult task. For most oncologists, they don't understand.
they treat the name of the cancer. They still don't understand the cancer is caused by the gene. If they would understand that they have a lot of things available to treat patients successfully, this would completely change the outlook of cancer treatment. You may have much more effective treatment now, without waiting for 30 years, whatever, with the available resources, they can already save the life of numerous patients.
A glioblastoma multiforme is a highly malignant primary brain tumor, which in the vast majority of patients is fatal. It is incurable in almost every patient. Doctors were very shocked because the biopsy revealed Laura's tumour had progressed from a grade 1 or 2 to now be a grade 4 glioblastoma, multiform.
Most of us would consider the average survival. to be about 9 to 12 months after diagnosis with what is termed conventional treatment. And conventional treatment consists of surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. So we then knew at that stage from this meeting that we were in this category of, this is terminal.
And Laura may not have... Many months. Yeah, months, not even a year, I don't know.
He was like... 16 months old. I tried to detach myself a lot from Jacob and my family and try and go into my own little world. I tried to...
Tried to break up with me. She said that you need to have a... you need to meet someone else, move on and start like a family with someone else and be with someone who's not ill, you know, like someone who's not got something like this. Timozolymide has given us a further weapon in our fight against glioblastoma by affording patients some extra survival, though this has not been proven to be scientific.
scientifically significant. She refused to touch it. I remember it came in a big bag and every night I used to have to open the packets and give her the tablets. It was like a little ritual and we both sat there and we just...
We were just so against it because we knew how ineffective it was as well. So it was almost like it's making her really sick. Some people don't survive chemotherapy. What's the point in Laura's last days being in such pain and being so ill for not much benefit, you know?
Once conventional treatments failed to stop Laura's glioblastoma brain tumor from growing, they were now relieved. released to try the Brzezinski Clinic. A young mother from Kent who's suffering from a rare form of brain cancer is trying to raise money for treatment which could save her life. 24-year-old Laura Himes has been told that her cancer is incurable, but she believes a new treatment which is available in America could give her a hope of survival.
It was on Christmas Eve, Laura Himes was told she had a rare form of brain cancer and the doctors have told her there's no cure. This grey patch is a low-grade cancer which is affecting her balance and her coordination. But doctors are much more concerned by this small white area, which is an aggressive form of cancer and has appeared in just the last three months. Their research led them to a hospital in America which claims many successes but is still being trialled. And for this reason, it's not available on the NHS.
Laura must now raise £75,000. Each day that goes by... You just wake up and...
Sorry. Just seeing my son get older every day, it's just really hard because I think, well, how long have I got? Laura and Ben know that a cure is not guaranteed, but they're determined to raise this money if it means there is at least some hope of prolonging Laura's life. Yeah, it was like a lot of websites calling him a scammer, quack.
And the first thing I thought was, well, I don't believe everything I read, so I need to find out what this is all about. So I did some research and found a family in England that had used this doctor. And he told us all about his experience at the clinic, gave us lots of contact details and phone numbers.
I'd read for days. and days and days about Dr. Brzezinski. I'd sit there for hours and hours reading message boards with arguments going back and forth.
And to find someone who'd actually been there to verify it, it was... that was it for us. Even like Laura's parents and some of my friends were saying you know this guy's a quack.
When I first heard about it I didn't think it would work because we'd been told that the only outcome was probably 12 months at the best and you hear so many stories about what they call snake doctors or peddling medicine that is absolutely useless. and I took a lot of convincing. Many months? Many months. Before leaving for Houston, Laura, Ben and her parents decided to have another meeting with her oncologist to make sure England's National Health Service would continue to cover Laura's MRI scans, blood work and other medical necessities once they returned home to England.
I knew it would be a very interesting conversation because we knew he was against what we were doing, what we decided. So I decided to record the meeting just so that we could refer back to it and listen to it when we got home because whenever we went to oncology meetings, we'd feel like we were bamboozled, like throwing so much information that you came out in shock and you didn't remember half of what was said. For legal reasons, we cannot disclose the name of Laura's oncologist or the hospital that this meeting took place. Hey!
Make sure we've got a doctor. No, what I say is that that's entirely... I mean, he even says...
Any of the UK Institute of Medicine claim that in the conventional medicine you find these clinicals not portable. I mean, what other op... The op... Given that I'm personally not entirely sure that this is a read, that as an NHS oncologist, and that's my limitations.
We're looking at it. Yeah. And you have said you're Laura, therefore Laura's got a child. Yeah, yeah. You read writing a long time your Yeah.
I'm friends. Yes, no, I do. If you can make one idea. What I cannot hold Laura with at that point, if she is under the clinical, it's a difficult thing to understand why. As long as he's under his care, then I wouldn't be able to provide him...
If it had happened, you would have got the doctor. There is a case. You can understand from outside what it's saying is... We do differ in our understanding of what is a problem. I'm very happy to support not support the person.
The other one. ...better than anybody else. You know......that one's on....and they died. Do you expect me to respect your choice? I don't feel that you may get sad news out in the bonds of the act, but we wanted to have that.
What if, say, this did work? You know, you were helping Laura achieve that by care here. Wouldn't that be a major positive thing for the medical community?
That's why you do this part in the US. It is a... I know.
So that must be. We are supposed to. We're watching on the net.
If there's no progression, we have further. OK. You can't cure Laura in the long run. That's the only way we're looking at it as a family.
If we knew that Laura could be cured, we wouldn't be looking elsewhere. Laura would have been costing the NHS X amount of money, chemotherapy. Approach, let me know when you...
Yeah. You can have a C-ROM of that diagnostic image. Yeah.
Once Laura goes out to America and she's all set up, it would be fantastic if you look after Laura when she's back in this country. So obviously we've got no other choice. This is what we're doing.
So with that, with your position hard... Would you like to do it? Putting aside... the clinic would you like yeah well that is you took the hypocrite as an answer before you try I feel more yet big again. Radiotherapy is most unlikely to all.
It was a very bad time and it's left us with a very distrusting attitude of the National Health Service. And when you mention to them options, they just shake their heads, no, no, that's not going to work. Yeah, we just feel very, what the hell is going on in this world?
There were a lot of newspapers and magazines clambering for our story, but when these stories were printed, it was exactly the story we wanted, but the headline was, how am I going to tell my son I'm going to die? It's just, you know, I don't know how these... people can sleep at night printing these kind of stories. When we decided to go to the Basinski Clinic and start fundraising, I emailed Ben at work and said, I've had an idea, I want to start up a fundraising campaign. campaign and website and call it the Hope for Laura Fund.
A well-known comedian read our website. Someone tweeted it to him on Twitter and he was so taken with it that he did a video that was about four minutes long. Hello, you lot on Twitter. This young mum with a 19-month-old son needs 80 grand to go to America for a year's worth of treatment. I don't know what we can do, but there's information about how we can donate on hopeforlaurafund.co.uk.
dot UK. I've got 200,000 followers. That means if only one in five gave a couple of quid, then this afternoon, we could have saved a woman's life, a young mum's life.
And we got £25,000 that day. And in the weeks following that, more money just kept coming in. We raised £75,000 in five weeks, which is what we needed for a year's treatment.
This interview with Laura and Ben took place on March 3rd, 2012, 435 days since Laura's original diagnosis and 228 days since beginning antineoplaston therapy. 11 days before this interview, an independently conducted MRI by her local radiologist reveals Laura's tumor to have diminished by 77%. Basically I was trained by the doctors in America to just look after all of this for Laura. It does make the routines in the day a bit difficult because there's a dose every four hours. These are new last night, these bags.
And this one lasts for a whole 24 hours. That one only lasts for half a day because you can see it's empty now. She's had three doses out of that overnight. So now I've got to change this bag, just that one.
New bag, A10. After a whole year of doing this day in day out, Laura's had probably 2,500 doses. There's only 3 doses in there.
You can imagine how many bag changes there have been. So bag one takes an hour and 20 minutes. to deliver a whole dose. So these work on a four hour cycle. And that's it, just get it all back together.
I mean this is relaxing for me, like knowing I'm actually doing something rather than sitting around watching her try and get better, I'm actually helping her. I think one of the biggest things for me was the fact that I went over there with her and I took part in this. It's actually easier to have it under.
Press start. This will go green. That basically means it's going to start in one minute.
Other people contacted us, you know, like their husband or son or someone may have the same type of tumour as Laura, asking for information and with the same questions we had, you know, is this guy a quack, what's it all about, you know. And we just say to them, look, you've got to do a lot of research, read between the lines, make your own mind up. If you decide it's not for you, then don't do it.
Back in September last year, I got an email out of the blue from a guy called Pete Cohen. And we had a chat and he told me about his girlfriend Hannah. I was rushed to hospital.
They thought I might have had a stroke and all manner of things, meningitis, everything. And I was sent down for a scan and it showed a darkening on one area of my brain. And then they advised me that I had a brain tumour.
He got most of the tumour out with Hannah talking. moving and conversing normally. It wasn't that scary.
I can remember everything, laughing and joking with the nurses, the speech therapist. But anyway, I still had a brain tumour when I came out. Most of the tumours we know that millions of cells remain in the brain and they can be very, very aggressive. In a way, we are providing a setting for a second stage therapy to take place.
I started my radiotherapy course around May. May and that went on to mid-June and then I went for another scan about six to eight weeks afterwards and there was still tumour left. We looked at lots of options.
The doctors are very limited options. They didn't offer me chemotherapy at that point in time. I'm sure it would have got to that but we wanted to find something different. They came over. here in December and met us for the first time just a week before they flew to America.
There were so many obstacles in getting her over there. Obviously the biggest one being the FDA deciding that somewhere, somewhere in America, someone looked at her case and decided yes or no. Thankfully they said yes, but they could have said no.
Maybe we had a good guy in on the day, maybe he flipped a coin and just went, hey, heads up, we're in. Hi, Daddy. Hello, how are you?
Yeah. I'm sorry for ringing so late. That's all right.
But I'm ringing with really, really good news. Good. That's what I want to hear. Go on, you tell me.
No, you tell me. I don't know if I can. Go on.
Tell me. Come on. My tumour... Yeah?
...has already shrunk by 10%. You're fucking hell, man. Fuck. That is absolutely amazing. This interview took place on March 2, 2012. Nineteen days later, an independently conducted MRI by Hannah's local radiologist revealed that Hannah's tumor diminished by 63%.
Things are great. Laura's been on treatment for 13 months and after nine months the tumour disappeared. And she's been on the maintenance programme since then, which basically means eight months of treatment from the time the tumour disappeared until she can finish. And that's to get rid of everything else that maybe isn't on the scans showing up.
I should finish just after Christmas. So that would be exactly two years since diagnosis that I've been fighting this thing because I was diagnosed on Christmas Eve. And Jacob was only 16 months old at the time.
I've got so much more energy. I'm able to get up and down the stairs. Simple things like that.
Just do normal things like cooking, going out. Laura was at home for months without going out anywhere. It's like it's slowly brought me out of this dark hole. There was a point in time where even if I talked about doing something next week with Laura or whatever just making any kind of plan should She'd feel really angry and refuse to live for the future, just for today and right now. But then she started slowly over time thinking about like next week, the week after.
And like we've planned our wedding now, which is next year. So we're thinking about the future without worrying so much. Just on a purely human level, nothing to do with medical, I felt absolutely gutted, devastated for her.
The thought of having such a horrendous thing, and then being told basically there's nothing anyone could do, and going out, doing... all the research so meticulously and becoming so knowledgeable about all of it i i'm speechless guys i think it's extraordinary did you feel uneasy or uncomfortable at all because of the fact that it is experimental and it's quite controversial. I mean, I suppose it's out of my comfort zone to be dealing with something that I haven't really got a grip on and don't understand.
And in terms of do I mind that it's a controversial thing, not at all. Not at all. This is a desperate situation. You do what you have to do if you've got the drive to do it. She's always going to be having scans the rest of her life, but probably less frequent.
But we can kind of stop letting it rule our lives. Jacob, how are you doing today? Eh, not too bad. I think when you were last here, I said something like... We're just taking each day as it comes.
And now I kind of can plan in advance a bit more. I mean, because you feel so different now, right? I do.
I mean, look at that smile. I mean, you know, she's optimistic about life. She's thinking about tomorrow and the next day. Hannah's had a complete response. She'll be on the treatment now for another, well, it's now, it'll be seven months.
So seven more months of this and then hopefully, well, being well, that's it. She's off. Stop. And she can. move around and start living a normal life again, which a year ago seemed impossible.
That wasn't going to... Yeah, that just wasn't going to happen. It was a dream.
It was a dream. We wanted it. But I think you probably believed it less.
I probably believed more that what we were going to do was going to work. I treat many patients with brainstem gliomas, and brainstem glioma is also a very unpleasant, fatal, in almost every case, primary brain tumor. And a brainstem glioma in a child is, by and large, a death sentence. Various treatments have been utilized over the world. Sadly, nothing has been found to be effective over a long period of time in any...
significant group of patients. It's a devilish and, you know, desperately awful disease to be suffering from. Brainstem gliomas are a blanket term for tumors occurring in the brainstem. Brainstem gliomas are found in children more often than adults.
85% of them occur in the region and are defined as a DIPG or diffuse intrinsic PONTINE GLIOMA The doctors were saying, I think they were being kind to me, they were saying, oh, there might be a 15% chance that she'll survive. So you click on to that 15%, but the more and more research you do, you think, no, what are they talking about, there isn't a 15%. survival rate for this.
DIPG, she's going to die. There's no known survivors. The only survivors we could find came back to the Brzezinski Clinic. So for me, it was a no-brainer. We either do this or do nothing.
It was good to talk to other people. I think I talked to Ben and Laura because they were out there a few weeks before we were going. And it's just reassuring to hear from someone else from your own country. Look, actually, this is good.
It's fine. And we got there. The doctors were brilliant.
Having gone through all my treatment of breast cancer, I'd met plenty of doctors. So you kind of know who's a good doctor and who's a bad doctor after meeting so many. So.
soon as we got there we thought right okay this is definitely the right thing to do and we were treated brilliantly and when we met Dr Brzezinski the first thing he said to us was it doesn't work for everyone and we're working on trying to find out the reasons why it works for some and not for others and he said unfortunately kids who haven't had radiotherapy do tend to do a little better better but we didn't have any choice Billy was going downhill so rapidly she had to have radiotherapy and I'm really happy that given the outcome unfortunately Billy didn't make it but it's a lot easier to deal with knowing that we did absolutely everything possible to try and save her. When you speak to other parents you are in this kind of club the DIPG club unfortunately it's a horrible place to be but you learn so much and you get far better feedback and advice from other families than you do from doctors so you do form very strong friendships you do feel like you're all in it together and you give each other a lot of support and there's no bullshit because who's going to lie or bullshit to you when they're in the same situation with their kid so I wanted to pass that on to other families so when Richard Saunders got in touch with me about Amelia saying this has happened to her us, what would you do? He was, I think, really on the edge of deciding, well, maybe we do nothing, because that's what the doctors have said.
And I felt it really important to encourage him to at least consider Brzezinski, because I definitely feel it was the right thing for us to do. So I'm really pleased that they went ahead and fingers crossed for them. We met four-year-old Amelia Saunders and her parents in London a few years ago. few weeks after she was diagnosed with a DIPG. I am the ultimate skeptic, by the way, with everything.
And I thought, these are real cases of this thing working. And actually, you know, when you're given no choice at all with something, either you try it, and it's that one percent chance that it works, you've got to give it a go, because otherwise we have a zero percent chance. We do have a zero percent chance. Six weeks later, we met the Saunders family in America at the Brzezinski Clinic. She's been on treatment for three weeks.
She's had a couple of little hiccups along the way, but other than that, she's done really well. There were no promises at all, and there have been no promises. There's been no magic wands to say, this is definitely going to work.
Five months later, we visited the Saunders at their home. At the moment, we don't know what's going on. We really don't know what is happening in terms of whether the treatment will actually shrink the tumor at all right now. The only thing we can sort of grasp on is that the tumor is actually going to be gone. to is how she's doing physically and what the scans show um and those scans are the same every single time equally it's not grown you know and that's got to be a good thing um i've made doubt that without the treatment it would have it would have grown and i don't i don't actually believe Amelia will be here now like you know we've never ever regretted the decision that we made we were told originally that we might have a month two months between a month and three or four months yeah i think that was the maximum time they said to have Amelia here now starting school is amazing Two months after this interview, Amelia's condition began to deteriorate, and her parents decided to discontinue antineoplaston therapy.
Amelia passed away with her parents by her side on January 6, 2013. Brainstem glioma is as rare as it is deadly. Approximately 500 children a year in the United States and 40 children a year in England are diagnosed with it. An exhaustive search spanning 27 years of all available medical literature worldwide reveals the absence of any patient ever being cured or living five years after diagnosis. Likewise, no proposed medication from the cancer industry has demonstrated enough safety and efficacy by any of the world's regulatory agencies to gain market approval for this condition. A comprehensive 21-year study reported in one of the world's most prestigious oncology medical journals, The Lancet, published that radiation remains the standard treatment.
Chemotherapy has not shown any benefit. Overall outlook is poor. and nearly all children eventually die.
Most studies showed a median survival time of shorter than one year. Tori Marino's birth on Father's Day was cause for celebration. But as she grew, her parents began to notice something unusual about her.
So Kim Marino and her husband Roman took their seven-week-old baby girl to a neurologist who told them she had an inoperable brain tumor and wouldn't live more than six weeks. I mean, that left us with, okay, this is what we're faced with. We will come home, we will bring her home and just love her daily, you know, while she's here.
And so Tori began taking steroids to reduce the pressure on her brain. The drugs have left her swollen. I remember Tori's oncologist telling me that your daughter is going to die. I recommend that you don't do CPR.
I know you're a police officer. You guys are part of your training, but you may want to let her die. And I have her desperate, ready to go. Just needs to be signed. But they refused to give up hope, and they sought out an...
experimental gene therapy treatment that's never been tried on someone so young. They'll leave their home in Garden Grove this weekend for a journey that could save their daughter's life. It's the first day of experimental gene therapy treatment that could reduce a...
large tumor in her brain. The medication will be pumped into her body six times a day for the next six weeks and will gradually increase in dosage. But the number one concern for little Tori's doctor and her parents is if there's enough time to save her.
If she makes it to her first or second birthday, I'd be overjoyed. Pat, doctors in Texas told baby Tori's parents the cancerous growth is so large, pressing on the baby's brain, they can't believe the little girl is able to eat or move her arms and legs. But this little gal is quite a fighter. She is holding her own, despite being the youngest person ever to undergo the experimental treatment. Everybody, this is my niece, baby Tori.
Here she is. Tori Moreno arrived home in L.A. this afternoon. In Texas, doctors inserted a catheter into Tori's chest.
Through it, experimental medicine called antineoplastins will be administered daily by her parents right at home. And they're not yet sure whether it will shrink Tori's tumor. She's the youngest. person ever to try the therapy.
You know back the initial onset in August when they were telling us that she was going to die was I we can't even believe she's still alive right now. This is an oncology team three of them and Tori's pediatrician who's been a doctor for a long time was saying this is the worst case they'd ever seen in their history. I remember that first scan came back that we started in October and by December it was the first time you get a chance to look at something. there was already a dramatic impact with that. And not only that, to take those scans to an outside doctor going, okay.
Tori's parents took her December 1998 scans to St. Francis Medical Center for a confirmation. The scan at the start of antineoplaston therapy was dated October 13th. St. Francis also described Tori's tumor in greater detail, noting that it was within the Pons region, almost completely replacing it, and extending out. beyond the brainstem itself. They noted the subsequent scan dated December 10th.
The tumor appears to have decreased in size. They summarized that comparisons between the October 13th and the December 10th scans suggests an approximate 20 to 25% decrease in the size of Torrey's tumor. And then a couple months later, it might have been two or three months later, we saw an additional reduction.
The doctors, I remember even in California, the oncology team was still baffled. They were still making excuses. And I was starting to see through that clearly now.
Saying, wow, what is the big issue with this guy's successful? And I almost like some professional envy or something like that. And I go, wow, okay. I was just baffled at the way they weren't giving Dr. Brzezinski. all this credit for this and you're talking about spontaneous remissions and I go like what I've already done the homework with that spontaneous remissions and a brainstem gliomas that those don't happen and I said do you know who Dr. Brzezinski is?
Well I've heard of him and I said he's in Houston Texas he deals with antineoplasms well I don't really know much about it I remember talking to doctors going well I'm a police officer I don't save lives for a living and I know a lot about it my suggestion is that you do some research with this Dr. Brzezinski I was baffled that they didn't take some time to get to know This doctor that was saving lives in Houston, Texas. But as we continued to go through there, we saw an ability for Tori to possibly live. We didn't feel like we were even out of the woodwork. Going, OK, well, this stuff shut off.
It stopped working. And so it wasn't until about maybe six months into it that we started feeling comfortable. Like, our daughter's going to get a chance to live. Here she is celebrating her.
We've had 14 birthdays now with her when they were saying she wouldn't make it to her first. So... Unfortunately, I obviously was too young to remember any of it, but I just...
When people ask me that, I unfortunately don't have a lot of information to give them, but it's, um... I just... it's my story, it's part of me, it's made me who I am, and I just...
I think it's a really, really cool story. A 2006 scientifically peer-reviewed report published in Pediatric Drugs reported the results of two Phase II antineoplaston clinical trials for children with diffuse brainstem glioma. A total of 40 children were treated, and an average of 25% of them lived beyond five years. While competing, Phase II and Phase III clinical trials using a combination of radiation and standard chemotherapy showed zero survivors. In 2012, America's National Cancer Institute likewise began publicly citing and acknowledging one of the Phase II peer-reviewed antineoplaston clinical trials for brainstem glioma.
As of 2013, there have only been two medications to ever be approved by the FDA for malignant brain tumors. Temidar in 1999 and Avastin in 2009. Though, Neither of them demonstrated enough safety or efficacy to reach FDA approval for a brainstem glioma. Nor were either of these drugs required to enter a multi-center randomized Phase III trial before being FDA approved for market. This was made possible due to legislation released in the 1990s, when the FDA formed its Accelerated Approval Program to quickly approve drugs that serve as the first available treatments for a life-threatening condition.
Instead of requiring... requiring evidence of clinical benefits such as survival. FDA will rely on objective evidence of partial response, such as tumor shrinkage, as an initial basis for approval. This will allow us to rely on smaller, shorter studies for the initial approval of cancer drugs.
Temadar first received accelerated approval for anaplastic astrocytoma brain cancer based on a single-arm Phase II study of 54 patients. 12 of the patients responded, with 5 of these patients having a complete response, though the overall survival time was 15.9 months. At the time of approval, no results were available from randomized controlled trials to show any clinical benefit or prolonged survival.
A VASTIN was granted accelerated approval for glioblastoma brain cancer based on two single-arm Phase II trials. The first was a Phase II randomized study of patients who had tried and failed Temadar and radiation. In this single randomized study, some responses were observed in 25.9% of the patients, with the average response itself lasting about 4.2 months. There was also a single-arm Phase II study conducted using 56 patients, all of whom also tried and failed Temadar and radiation. responded with the average response lasting about 3.9 months.
So, the only two drugs to ever be approved for malignant brain tumors were never required to enter a traditional multi-center randomized phase 3 trial before reaching approval, nor was either drug required to cure a single patient. These drugs were, however, required to enter a multicenter randomized phase 3 trial only after they were already in the hands of the public. Comparably, a series of multiple single-arm FDA-sanctioned phase 2 clinical trials for brainstem glioma using antineoplastons conducted from 1995 to 2008, 169 patients in total were treated, with 33 of those patients being completely cured or have lived beyond 5 years. Antineoplastons are more than qualified for accelerated approval to serve as the first available effective treatment for brainstem glioma. Instead, the FDA has mandated that antineoplastons be the first and only exception in FDA history where an effective, life-saving, first available cancer medicine will not be granted the option for accelerated approval.
In 2011, over 7,000 Americans signed a petition with President Obama's administration asking Congress to intervene in this matter. The White House did not respond. Instead, the FDA responded, stating that no randomized controlled studies showing the effectiveness of antineoplastons have been published, nor have all the trials needed to approve antineoplastons been conducted.
However, three years prior, the FDA officially acknowledged that antineoplastons demonstrated enough safety and efficacy in Phase II trials, thus granting permission to proceed into Phase III randomized trials for brainstem glioma. It is difficult to verify the rationale for the FDA's insistence on antineoplastons being subjected to Phase III trials for brainstem glioma, but some theorize that this rare exception is due to the pharmaceutical industry having too much power over the FDA. and is directly preventing antineoplastons from gaining market approval of any kind.
Dr. David Graham has been working at the FDA for 20 years. He's a senior official. We sat down with Dr. Graham for his first extended face-to-face television interview.
Just who is the FDA working for? A former manager of mine in the Office of Drug Safety told me that industry was our client. And when I said to him, no, the public is my client.
He said I was wrong, that it was industry. FDA is there to serve its client industry. It is not there to serve the public.
FDA has become a factory for the approval of new drugs. To understand how the FDA got to where it is today, you need to go back to 1992. That year, the first President Bush, with the support of both Democrats and Republicans, signed into law the Prescription Drug User Fee Act. The law was passed in response to industry complaints.
that the FDA wasn't approving drugs fast enough. Part of the deal? The drug companies agreed to start paying the FDA to speed up the approval process. It worsened the culture within FDA that was already bad to start with, that said, we will approve drugs and we'll approve them quickly because essentially all this money is coming in from the pharmaceutical companies, therefore we need to please the pharmaceutical companies. Well, that is eventually the mentality that emerged.
That's changed the whole balance of financial power within the agency. Here's the thing. While the industry has been providing more and more money for approvals, Congress has cut spending for the rest of what the FDA does. As a result, almost four out of every five dollars the FDA spends on drug regulation now goes to getting new drugs approved for sale. You know, I pick up the papers and I read articles that say that the FDA is slow in approving drugs.
The big problem that... you all have over there is bureaucratic foot dragging keeping important new treatments away from people who need it desperately. Right.
That is a complaint. I think where that complaint originates from is probably from the pharmaceutical industry. It's not true, though.
I mean, in the cases of a drug that might be necessary to help someone's cancer from progressing. Well, let's put it this way. If you look at most drugs that get approved, on the marketplace, most of them aren't offering a true therapeutic advance. You use this whole rigmarole at the FDA to get a drug approved, and you're saying it doesn't offer much over an existing drug?
No, it usually doesn't offer anything over existing drugs. Well, like what? Let's look at Vioxx.
What we say is the truth, trust us, this drug is safe and effective. It's safe and effective because we, the FDA, say it is, and we don't have to produce evidence to justify that. And their reaction is...
predictably and uniformly the same, which is they deny that there's a problem and they kill the messenger who brought them the bad news. If the FDA released antineoplastons to the public to treat brain stem glioma, it would in turn also allow any cancer patient with any type of cancer diagnosis to also have the option to receive antineoplastons from their local oncologist under the FDA's category of off-label use. And this is a very common...
kind of business practice on all kinds of business is you try to push out the competition. And, you know, because bringing a drug to market takes $400, $800 million, they're going to try to minimize any competition. And that could be, you know, competition can be on a lot of levels.
This is pretty normal in all facets of business. They want to remove competition in any way that they can that's legal or maybe not. quite so legal.
One of the things that helps to perpetuate the system the way that it is, is the FDA is regulating the pharma world. The pharma world is all run by the same people. The same people who are regulating all this big pharma are the same people who are running the big pharma. And they go back and forth. You start up, you move up through the FDA, you become important enough, big pharma will hire you because you have that expertise and all the contacts in the agency.
And it goes the other way. If you're in big pharma, you learn enough, you know how it is, you've got enough buddies on both sides. It's a fact. You can just look at records, public records, and it's a big boys club. The FDA requires that any Phase III trials for any new drug be conducted by a series of independent hospitals without the inventor's involvement.
Upon receiving the official permission from the FDA to begin a series of phase three randomized clinical trials to get antineoplastons approved for brainstem glioma, the Brzezinski Research Institute approached nearly every single children's hospital in the United States, Canada, and England and every single one of these hospitals flatly refused to participate in these phase three trials for brainstem glioma. Because you know big company like an AstraZeneca or what They put a lot of money into companies like the Quintiles and other contract research organizations that feed into these. If you don't think they have an influence on what kind of business those businesses will pick up, if you're going to work with him, I'll move my work somewhere else. A common reason some of the hospitals gave after rejecting this study was simply not interested.
Other hospitals denied participation. because they didn't like the idea that patients would take the therapy home with them, undergoing 24-hour infusions, carrying an electric pump around, and changing their bags on their own, since every other standard of care therapy has always been administered for its full duration within the hospital itself. Another reason all hospitals refused to participate was out of fear that no parent would agree to allow their child to enter one of these Phase 3 trials because the FDA has also mandated that radiation therapy be required in both groups since radiation is proven to cause serious debilitating side effects when administered to the brainstem region of a developing child.
The Lancet Oncology's 2006 Exposé on Childhood Brainstem Glioma has pointed out that theoretically, randomized studies are the method of choice to test a new hypothesis. However, when the standard treatment or control group provides no chance of success, The rationale to have a randomized design with a standard treatment group is questionable and practically very difficult, especially in pediatric or children's oncology. The best method remains to be defined.
Another reason is due to the reputation of the therapy's inventor, who has legally defeated the FDA itself in five federal grand juries and two sets of juried federal trials. When you add all of these reasons up, it becomes easy to understand why no hospital will step out on a limb to participate in these trials, since any prospective patient doing a Google search for antineoplastons or its inventor is met with a slew of negativity. The same is true if any current, past, or future patient posts anything on Facebook or Twitter.
They are instantly met with an onslaught of harassment and intimidation that has been carefully crafted, and executed by a well-organized international group who call themselves the skeptics. They're hidden behind that keyboard so they can say whatever they like and they're probably paid by the pharmaceuticals and I'm sure they're in hock with with the government's with people that make a living out of being sceptics, to keep everything suppressed. You can't dare have the truth come out because that would be... Because it would cost the government too much money. Yeah.
I've been working for the last couple of months with some fairly big names in the sceptical movement and people you'd be surprised who'd be working on the same team to combine forces, legal teams and budgets. And we're gonna bring... Brzezinski a present on his birthday.
Booyah! The FDA needs to step up and stop participating in this transparent, ongoing scam by no longer approving patients who want to participate in this unpromisingly imaginary trials. People who want to step up and protect these patients can do something very, very important, and that's right about this man and about his clinic and his treatment, antineoplastin. We need to saturate the normal channels by which people come to him with better information.
And I can't think of a better reason to do it than to see that Brzezinski is widely exposed and ridiculed as the ...untroven kind of quack that he is. Quite frankly, when you talk about people at their last ditch efforts to fight cancer, especially children, it's really difficult not to look like a heartless, cynical skeptic. I know it doesn't sound good to the people who are there right now. They are funding his future campaigns of deception.
And that's what we're trying to stop. My time is better spent warning the people who don't believe yet. And the people who are, you know, in Brzezinski's camp can stay in his camp.
And I'm not going to try to dissuade them, but I am going to try to dissuade him from recruiting any more customers. Absolutely. Absolutely. He's going to be hearing from us.
Polish sausage, you. When we met Dr. Buzinski, he is without shadow of a doubt one of the kindest... This is ridiculous.
All these people think this man is a crook or a charlatan. They don't really know what's going on. They haven't looked into it.
They've just heard or read something. You know, we spent seven weeks there. Yeah. And if that guy's a fraud, then he's the biggest fraud. It's the biggest scam ever.
And there's a really strange relationship that he has with his patients. It's almost a fanatical devotion to him. above all reason.
Something that you see a lot in cults. What a cult does, it brings people in and makes them dependent on the cult for something. And you see that being repeated over and over and over in the patient testimonials. There's a serious cult of personality around the leader.
It really does feel a lot like a sort of death cult. We've had some therapy because of everything we've been through. Understandably, everyone would, you know. When I started my side of the therapy on my own, I was actually quite shocked to find that everything I was talking about, like how stressed I was and just how I couldn't switch off all the time, was all to do with the fundraising and the stress of trying to raise money while people were trying to stop us raising money. And I think one of the most stressful things, obviously apart from Laura being ill with cancer, the second most stressful thing was trying to deal with...
with all this criticism really. I mean it's come close to like tearing our lives apart to be honest. We've had an 18 month old son to look after and we've got these people basically telling Laura she should just die. Forget choosing a girl to die.
Yeah one actually did say that as well or wrote it in a message board that I should just accept that I'm going to die. Brzezinski adopts none of the risks that any other researcher adopts. Charging terminal patients up front.
A common skeptic criticism of the Brzezinski Clinic is charging money for the therapy up front, before the treatment begins, since insurance companies generally refuse to pay for it. We end up getting our insurance company to pay. I can't mention the name of the insurance company because we're forced to sign a gag order. Brzezinski's staff was paid.
You know, under the table. When we had to sign this gag order, I'm thinking, wow, they're going through all these steps to sit there and have to conceal that they're paying for something, that they got forced to pay for to maybe save a kid. In 2008, the Wall Street Journal published an expose explaining how non-profit hospitals, such as MD Anderson Cancer Center, asked one patient for $105,000 in cash before admitting her.
MD Anderson's vice president of finance said asking patients to pay after they've received a treatment is like asking someone to pay for a car after they've driven off the lot. You see a lot of people saying, well, the reason why he can't do his trials is because it costs $200 million to do a trial. I don't know where they're getting that number.
And that, you know, he's not getting any external funding, so he has to charge people out the nose. And that's just not how it works. It's really difficult for people to understand about paying for something yourself. So when we found out how much the Brzezinski treatment was, yes, it's a lot of money.
But if you put it into context of chemotherapy, we met someone at a clinic in Texas whose daughter was having chemotherapy. And their medical bill, which was covered by their medical insurance, fortunately, was $800,000 for the month. So when you think that the Brzezinski treatment is $10,000 a month or less...
then it's relatively cheap. But it's just difficult for people to get their heads around actually paying out of your own pocket. The skeptics have hijacked and locked the Wikipedia page on the Brzezinski Clinic, blocking all neutral contributions in their efforts to sway any prospective patients from considering this therapy. The only neutral information found in this entry is Brzezinski's date of birth and prior medical education.
The skeptic responsible for this article also compiles and publishes death lists of previous patients, most all of whom were children who died of brainstem glioma. He then republishes the lists on various websites, giving the illusion that they are coming from more than one source. This skeptic receives funding from America's Department of Defense, the National Cancer Institute, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the pharmaceutical industry.
In another of his paid positions for a National Geographic syndicated blog, this writer uses a different name and publishes articles about patients undergoing antineoplaston treatment and the therapy itself on a near weekly basis. In, um... October when we released stable results, we put two scans up, we put September and October up.
It's the same size but it started to break down a bit, so we were happy, we put these scan pictures up on our website. The next six weeks later we did another scan and it had shrunk 30%. 36%.
So we told everyone this news, released it on our website. He then did an article and used a link to the previous scans as his evidence saying look at these scans, it's clearly not shrunk, you know. He's lying to them.
We've got a message for any people that have been disrespectful to me. Try to tell you what to do. Yeah, try to stop people donating to me to help me get better so I can see my son grow up. I want to tell you all. Basically, stick your noses out of our business.
Yeah, and fuck off. And fuck off. Now that dozens of successful antineoplaston phase 2 trials are complete, it is the responsibility of the inventor to publish the details of those trials in the peer-reviewed medical literature, allowing it to be shared globally with the scientific community.
Up until 2006, articles containing antineoplaston studies have been consistently accepted in various medical journals. On November 26, 2012, An antineoplaston phase 2 study regarding patients who lived between 8 to 16 years after being diagnosed with a glioblastoma multiforme, the same type of incurable brain tumor Laura Hymus had, was rejected by the Lancet Oncology. Two hours after it was submitted.
The reason for the Lancet's rejection was simply We have decided not to publish it because we believe the message would be better elsewhere. The most common argument from medical scientists who dismiss all cases of people cured using antineoplastons as being merely anecdotal comes from the absence of any randomized controlled clinical trials. Science must be born in doubt.
An anecdotal event produces scientific mind. Anecdotal is very important, but If you report anecdotal, anecdotal, anecdotal, it doesn't do anything good. It's not persuading.
It's not convincing. That's why we did the randomized study. The motivation why we started this research on antinatal porousin for the last 27 years, we did not believe Dr. Brzezinski blindly would like to see very much the effect.
of antineoplasm by our own eyes, in our own ways. We did the phase one study first. We would like to know how much dose the patient could tolerate.
We use antineoplastin A10 and AS2-1 injection formula and oral formula. In the 43 patients, about 50% of patients are responding to this combination therapy with antineoplastin A10 and AS2-1. We published this result from the phase 1 clinical study. Since we found the better response in the cancer of the liver, we decided to concentrate our study on liver cancer study.
And we moved our research to Phase II clinical trial. We found that the AS2-1 could obviously prolong the disease free interval and overall survival. So we moved to the prospective randomized clinical trial. In this study, we subjected the liver metastasis from colon. We divided the patient into two groups randomly, in control and antineoplaston-treated group.
30 patients in antineoplaston group and 33 patients in control group. And in antineoplaston group, We add the antineoplastin A10 injection for one week, AS2-1 capsule for at least one year, in addition to the intra-arterial hepatic infusion 5-FU. In control group, about 50% of the patients live around 36 months.
In antineoplastin group, 50% of the patients live about 70 months. It's, you know, obviously the antineoplasm makes it longer, about double. The scientific community invented the randomized study for not only excluding the anecdotal data, they are avoiding the bias.
This has been done. In Kurume University Hospital, completely independent from any other institute, we are not... given advice from Brzezinski either. This is the way the scientists should be. First we doubt the data from Brzezinski and we tested it.
We found that Dr. Brzezinski was right. It's not obviously anecdotal anymore. If cancer was cured today, there's a lot of institutions around the U.S., especially our universities, but also in the pharma industry, that would all of a sudden lose a lot of money.
And with the NIH, the university gets matching funds. To keep the buildings and all the other things that, so universities especially that are into cancer research, they don't really have an incentive to find that cure because then it all dries up. As much as you may not be able to find a cure, you don't have to find a cure.
not like that, that's the way our system is. It's not the Star Trek world where what you need is what you get and la la la, but it is reality. And money wins, money votes, money does everything. And it controls our government as much as it controls the government. much as we hate to admit it.
It motivates the pharmaceutical industry. We're not out in the pharma world. The commercials will tell you that we're out there to make everybody healthy and happy, and that's not why they're out there. They're there to make money, period. The best drugs in the pharma world are the ones that people have to continue taking forever and ever and ever and ever.
That's what the big money is. They want to be able to dose people over and over and over, keep them alive for a couple years at least on all the drugs. That's the incentive for making money.
Think it through a little bit. It's sad, but it's reality. If you found the cure for cancer, boom.
Now what? Now you're not doing nothing. You're out of business too. That all these years later, we're now 15, 16, 17 years later, and it's deja vu all over again. This is all a rehash of what they did in the 90s.
We worked night and day to organize the patients. Without this treatment. My son will die. To get the congressional hearings underway.
Out of 52 cases of that disease ever, no one died cancer free, just Chrissy. So she didn't die of a terminal illness. She died because there's a government institution that disseminates false information and is not looking out for the welfare of the people.
If it weren't for the efforts of our group and all of the patients who contributed their time, their effort, and their money, Dr. Brzezinski might not have survived the trial and he would be rotting away in a jail cell today. There's got to be a way to level the playing field that does not favor the Merck's and the Bristol-Myers and the large drug companies. There should be a system developed where we can encourage innovative research that's being done by the sole practitioner, the sole researcher.
That's the problem. Let's look at medical breakthroughs. In 1920, Banting and Best, or Banting up in Canada, had discovered insulin and had this idea that if insulin could be given to a patient with diabetes, type 1 diabetes, it would cure the condition. Within two years, Eli Lilly had insulin in drug stores.
Let's skip another 20 years. Pneumonia was discouraged until Fleming discovered penicillin. Now penicillin was used, pneumonia left. We haven't had a medical breakthrough in 50 years because today medical breakthroughs put at risk the entire financial underpinnings. If you have medical breakthroughs that replace therapies that are failing, then the profits and the cash flow of those therapies that are failing is lost and lost forever.
So that is the biggest barrier to Brzezinski or anybody else that brings on a therapy that is superior to what is done today. Hence, we haven't had any major medical breakthroughs for the last 50 years. So what do we have?
We have this outreach. of awareness. We got people running around with all kinds of colored ribbons saying that I am aware of breast cancer. We got football players wearing pink shoelaces, increasing awareness of breast cancer.
There was no movement to increase the awareness of diabetes. There was no movement to increase the awareness of pneumonia. There is no need for any movement to increase the awareness of any disease. You got a serious disease in your culture. You are aware of it.
And what awareness doesn't do, it doesn't cure the disease. It's not going to lead to the cure, because today, virtually every serious disease has a huge vested interest in the therapies that people are paying money for that fail. So everything is locked, but when you come across with something that cures cancer...
While I was entering the MRI machine, I was made aware that the FDA entered Brzezinski's clinic one day prior. If the results of this FDA visit ends badly and my cancer returns, I might not get the option of ever getting antineoplastons again. I'm going to talk you through the first scan that I saw and the last scan that we are going to see now.
What we see is that lesion is markedly reduced in size. Rim enhancement has gone as well. It shows that Laura has been really responding well to treatment. There is no sign of residual disease at all.
That's great. I can't imagine a world where other people will not have the privilege that I have had. The privilege to have their life saved by a new technology that can cure cancer.
It's terrifying. We would like to publish our data in this randomized study to the medical journal. I hope the big medical journal will accept our experience, our...we have known in the past 27 years.
I hope it will. I don't know if it's a big journal or not. This thing is bigger than Brzezinski because it represents a true breakthrough. Where generations separated from us, 30, 40 years, if Brzezinski...
if his therapy was liberated, generations separated won't be thinking about cancer. We're not thinking about pneumonia and we're not thinking about diabetes. So they will not be thinking about cancer. Can you imagine a society where women are not terrified by mammograms and men are not kind of semi-raped with all this prostate stuff? Can you think of a culture living without this perpetual fear of cancer?
That's what Brzezinski's discovery offers. The concept of anti-nephrolithic treatment has not been easily accepted in general meaning. But if you open your mind and if you are willing to accept any concept coming in, just think about the benefits for the patient. That's all.
That's the whole purpose of the medicine there. I think it is only human to want to seek treatment for a disease that is considered to be almost universally fatal. We can obviously only offer the treatment that we ourselves offer.
but I'm always pleased if a patient's treatment is going successfully and their disease is either remitting or go into remission for whatever reason. Always. Great. Can you think of anything? Excuse me, anything else you would like to?
Yeah, anything else you want to say? All right. Not with cameras running.
Okay, cool. Turn everything off. You turn everything off, and then I'll speak to you. Okay, cool.