“there is no hope for Josia’s tumor as there was only 5% survival.”
that is the stupidest statement I have read this morning.
I do not fault the parents who tried what they thought was their only chance. Brain tumors, cancer in general, can be a baffling disease in the way that it is treated and the way that bodies respond to the ‘standard’ treatment.
No doubt the FDA will spend lots of money on this and of course never talk about how chemo kills the patient or that cancer really isn’t cured when it comes back later
“they chose to cling on the hopes offered by Stanislaw Burzynski.”
With a name like this, it sounds like this guy practices Soviet-style socialized medicine.
This should have the parents a clue to find another Dr. With a name like Goldberg or Rothstein, you can pretty much getting a quality doc than one named “Stanislaw”...
Just an observation...
This is a ping list for cancer survivors and caregivers to share information. If you would like your name added to or removed from this ping list, please tell us in the comments section at this link (click here).
(For the most updated list of names, click on the same link and scroll to the end of the comments.)
Whaaaaa...?
We oughta get The FDA to investigate Obamacare.
“Death of a 6 year-old”, I was hoping was being applied to this 0’ and his merry regime.
This doc has a long history of being beat up by the feds.
I don’t know if his medicine is any good or not.
97 of 102 people found the following review helpful
True Hope - A Response to Lauren Seiler, November 1, 2002
By Jodi GoldThis review is from: The Burzynski Breakthrough (Hardcover)
I am the best evidence that the conclusions drawn by Lauren Seiler in his Oct. 20, 2002 review of this book are completely wrong. I hope he reads this and seeks out the Burzynski treatment for his son, whose life it might well save. I was diagnosed with an inoperable anaplastic astrocytoma (Grade 3 brain tumor) in May 2000. Doctors told me that I had somewhere between 6 and 18 months to live. I am alive and cancer free today in large part because of “The Burzynski Breakthrough,” the book and the treatment. Shortly after my diagnosis, I learned of this book and, unlike Seiler, contacted the author with questions that were in some ways like his, and in some ways different. After reading the book and hearing Elias’ answers, I sought out the treatment and was symptom free within less than four months - just when my other doctors had told me I should be on my deathbed.
When I read Seiler’s review, I telephone Elias and asked him to provide me responses to some of his criticisms. Here is a summary of what he told me, going through the Seiler review point by point:
There is no bibliography in the rear of this book because every source is identified specifically in the text. Elias said his publisher did not wish to list all Burzynski’s publications because they number more than 500, and he has cited the most relevant ones in the text of the book.
Elias does indeed describe his methods for choosing patients included in the book. In both the prologue and epilogue, he details the cases of patients he met in the waiting room of the Burzynski Clinic on his first visit there, a completely unannounced visit. He included histories of all patients present who were willing to be interviewed in the epilogue and the prologue. As for the choice of which patients to use as full-length case-history chapters in in the book, Elias said they were chosen in a method he described as akin to the stratified random sampling done by political pollsters. Since he wanted broad geographic distribution (and got it, with patients from CA, AL, NY and points in between), he selectd at random from a list of Burzynski patients from various regions - the South, West, Northeast, etc.
Seiler wondered about the authenticity of the tables in the rear of the book and asked how long those in complete remission had been at that category. As he would have seen had he read the charts in detail, all information came from Burzynski’s submissions to the U.S. Food and Drug Aministration. He would risk criminal prosecution if any such information was falsified. The definitions of complete remission, partial response and stable disease are precisely those the FDA uses in all clinical trials of cancer drugs. Those listed in complete remission have been in that condition for varying lengths of time. The best evidence for the truth of positive results reported in the charts is the fact that negative results are also reported in the same charts. Neither Burzynski nor Elias has ever claimed this treatment is 100% successful.
Seiler also notes that there is little critical comment in the book. In point of fact, the book contains an entire chapter detailing criticisms of Burzynski, his methods and his Antineoplastons, rebutting them in detail. It is simply false to say Elias has ignored the critics when he has specifically responded to the most prominent of those critics. As for criticisms by patients, Elias reports that even among prosecution witnesses at Burzynski’s criminal trial in 1997, he found none.
Elias also responds to Seiler’s concluding comments, one by one:
1. Elias admits on Page 8 not being an expert reader of MRIs. But, Seiler suggests, he should have brought an expert with him. Elias notes that on Page 8, part of his acknowledgements, he was discussing the news story he wrote on strict deadline about Burzynski while still a correspondent for Scripps Howard. He says he did seek expert readings of scans later, while researching the book.
2. Seiler says Elias mentions a Stage 2 astrocytoma on Page 280, when these tumors are designated by grades, not stages. Elias responds by noting that the “Stage 2” reference came ina direct quotation from a physician, adding that he at no point changed even a word in any direct quotation included in the book.
3. To Seiler’s objection to one of Elias’ conclusions, the author responds that “facts are facts. I describe the situation as it is, not what I or anyone lese wishes it to be.”
In short, I am living evidence that Elias does not offer false hope in his book, as Seiler claims. To the contrary, anyone who sees me (and hundreds of other long-surviving Burzynski patients) will know there is real hope with the Burzynski treatment for cancer patients of all kinds, and especially for brain tumor patients, for whom nothing else works at all.
Jodi Gold - Los Angeles, CA
This is supposed to pass as something from a professional writer with professsional editors? That sentence would earn the entire story an F in any self-respecting writing class.
It's obvious that whoever wrote/edited it is either pretty careless or pretty ignorant (and very likely pretty arrogant). Josia Cotto's death is sad but his parents had the God-given right to give the doctor of their choice a try.
http://boingboing.net/2013/01/18/cancer-quackery-news-stanisla.html
Cancer quackery news: Stanislaw Burzynski threatens one of his own patients over website
http://media.boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/burzynski.jpg
The FDA is appealing to emotion. Conventional (Socialist) medicine could not cure the kid (5% cure rate quoted). But when the kid is not saved by non-Conventional (Free-Market) medicine (83% cure rate quoted), then the Free-Market approach is blamed. And the blame is made personal against the doctor, which is an Alinsky tactic.
Burzynski Movie: Cancer Is Serious Business (Official 2011 Release)
Obama’s solution would be to “just take a pill.”
Fraudulent doctors are the worst kind of murderers, selling false hope to the desperate.
