Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cancer Patient Thomas Navarro Dies at Age Six [medical freedom case]
Natural Health Line ^ | Jan. 1, 2002 | By Peter Chowka

Posted on 01/06/2002 8:53:39 PM PST by Gelato

Cancer Patient Thomas Navarro Dies at Age Six

© By Peter Chowka

Photo courtesy of the Navarro family

(Jan. 1, 2002) Thomas Navarro's two year long struggle to survive brain cancer came to an end on November 19, 2001 when the six-year old child died in Houston, Texas.

During the first eighteen months after Thomas' diagnosis, in September 1999, his family's efforts to get him access to nontoxic treatments resulted in major national publicity, becoming the most compelling and heart-wrenching individual example of the search for medical freedom in more than two decades. Thomas and his parents James and Donna won considerable political support, too - which led to freedom of choice legislation, the "Thomas Navarro FDA Patient Rights Act," being introduced in the House of Representatives on February 16, 2000.

Thomas was initially diagnosed with medulloblastoma, a virulent form of brain cancer. Standard chemotherapy treatments either have limited effect or leave the patient with severe complications, like permanent brain damage and retardation. After considerable research, James and Donna Navarro attempted to have their son treated by innovative Houston, Texas clinician and researcher Stanislaw Burzynski, MD, PhD, but they were prevented from doing so by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The power of the FDA to control the medical freedom of individual Americans was chillingly illustrated by this case. The agency was able to subvert not only the parents' best intentions but ignore repeated calls by leading national political leaders, including every major candidate for the 2000 Republican presidential nomination, to allow Thomas to be treated without delay by Burzynski.

For over eighteen months, Thomas' only legally available treatment options were conventional chemotherapy and surgery. Finally, on April 26, 2001, according to an account at the Navarros' Web site - http://cancerbusters.com which has now been taken offline - Thomas was allowed to be treated by Burzynski. This FDA dispensation, however, according to cancerbusters.com, came "not until after a recent MRI [in which] doctors discovered that Thomas had developed such a vast number of new tumors in his head, neck and spine, that Thomas was considered terminally ill in the eyes of the conventional medical community. Ironically, these new tumors - now called leptomeningial-sarcoma, a mutation of the original cancer - were caused by the very chemotherapy that the Navarros tried so desperately to prevent (a fact accepted by conventional doctors!) and that the FDA rules forced Thomas to endure before they would grant access to Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski's promising Antineoplaston therapy. The new cancer. . . was now considered unstoppable. . .

Thomas Navarro and his father James are introduced during the nationally televised Republican presidential debate,
Jan. 15, 2000, Des Moines, IA
Digital still video capture by Peter Chowka from C-SPAN

"Only when Thomas was declared terminally ill and given fourteen days to live did the FDA, because of something called 'Compassionate Use Approval,' finally say yes to Dr. Burzynski's Antineoplaston treatment. Compassionate Use was authorized after intense pressure was applied by the Chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, Congressman Dan Burton. . .It is all a family can do to persevere when a child is diagnosed as being terminally ill with cancer. But Thomas' family was forced into a fight with the American government for the right to life, and a good quality of life, on top of their already grueling fight at home."

According to an e-mail update on December 3 by friends of the Navarros, Thomas' parents received a phone call on November 27, the day of the boy's funeral in Houston, from the office of Rep. Burton (R-IN). A strong supporter of freedom of medical choice and chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform, which heard testimony from James Navarro in a hearing on June 7, 2000, Burton is set to re-introduce the latest version of "Thomas' bill" to the House of Representatives in the 108th Congress.

For more information,

Medical Freedom Fight Moves to Political Center Stage
Natural HealthLine Jan. 15, 2000

Medical freedom case attracts support as national media report on developments
Natural HealthLine Feb. 1, 2000 

Thomas Navarro Medical Freedom Update: Family is Optimistic
Natural HealthLine March 1, 2000 

James Navarro challenges FDA Commissioner Henney on C-SPAN
Natural HealthLine April 15, 2000 

Congressional hearings on alternative medicine and childhood cancers
Natural HealthLine July 4, 2000

 

© By Peter Chowka 




TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: alternativemedicine; braincancer; burzynski; cancer; stanislawburzynski
Maybe this is common knowledge already that little Thomas Navarro had died, but I didn't learn about the unfortunate outcome until today, as I was researching on the internet.

Here's some background on the story, for those who don't know:


NaturalHealthLine EXCLUSIVE:
Medical freedom case attracts
support as national media
report on developments
© by Peter Chowka


Thomas Navarro and his father James at the GOP debate, Jan. 15, 2000
Digital still video capture by Peter Chowka from C-SPAN

N JANUARY 14, I was among the first journalists, along with Jon E. Dougherty of WorldNetDaily on January 12, to report nationally on the case of four year-old Thomas Navarro. Navarro's family wants their son, who has brain cancer, to be treated by Houston clinician Stanislaw Burzynski, MD, PhD. Burzynski uses a nontoxic alternative treatment called antineoplastons and has battled for 20 years for approval of his methods. Since last fall, the Navarros, who allowed Thomas to have surgery but have eschewed follow-up conventional chemotherapy and radiation, have been prevented from using the Burzynski therapy by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

On January 10, Alan Keyes, PhD, one of six leading candidates for the Republican Presidential nomination, raised the issue of the Navarros' plight in his closing statement at a nationally televised candidates' debate.

The story has now been reported in the mainstream national media and the Navarros' cause has gained support from the other five Republican candidates, as well. All six candidates for the Republican presidential nomination (Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch dropped out of the race on January 27) have signed a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala, drafted by Keyes, which says, in part, "It should be the right of every responsible American citizen to seek the medical care of their choice without government bureaucracies standing in their way. Time is running out for Thomas Navarro and for countless Americans like him. It is imperative that you expedite a decision on allowing the medical treatment chosen by his parents for this young boy."

In addition to Keyes and Hatch, the other candidates who signed the letter are social activist Gary Bauer, Gov. George W. Bush (TX), publisher Steve Forbes, and Sen. John McCain (AZ).


Alan Keyes gestures to the Navarros, GOP debate, Des Moines, Iowa Jan. 15, 2000 Digital still video capture from C-SPAN by Peter Chowka

"I just wanted you to have a chance to meet them. . ."

In the January 15th debate televised nationally from Des Moines, Iowa, Keyes, true to the promise he had made to the Navarros beforehand, devoted his entire opening statement to Thomas' situation. From his position on stage, Keyes gestured to Thomas and his father James, who were sitting in the VIP section of the audience, and father and son were shown on national television for the first time. Keyes had invited James and Thomas to appear with him at a number of campaign stops in Iowa starting on January 15, prior to the caucuses held in the state on January 23. James and his son flew to Des Moines from Houston, where they have set up camp at a hotel near the Burzynski clinic with Thomas' mother Donna for over two months. There, they continue to wait for what they hope will be official government permission for Thomas to access the Burzynski therapy.

In a statement released by his campaign from Johnston, Iowa on January 15 following the first "face-to-face meeting" between Keyes and James and Thomas Navarro the day before, Keyes said "I will do everything in my power to help Thomas Navarro receive the medical treatment that his family wants for him. There is no excuse for the federal government, in the name of protecting the people, to stand idly by and let this young boy die.

"This nation was conceived in liberty," Keyes went on, "so that all who lived here might be free of tyranny. When a government stands in the way of the right of responsible American citizens to seek the medical care of their choice, we have moved one step closer to the kind of tyrannies our founding fathers sought to escape. Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala needs to act now to remove the barriers that stand between Thomas Navarro and the only chance to save his life."

Keyes' unequivocal support of the Navarros and the larger issue of medical freedom of choice, in two debates, in news releases, at his official campaign Web site, and on the campaign trail, represents the highest profile national political support for freedom to choose alternative medicine in modern history.

Enter the mainstream media

On January 18, James Navarro made his first nationally televised talk show appearance on Hannity and Colmes, a nightly, live, hot hour long political discussion show from New York City on the Fox News Channel, again at the behest of Keyes. Keyes was a guest on the show from Washington and he was joined on the air for a few moments by James Navarro to discuss the case. The show's hosts, conservative Sean Hannity and liberal Alan Colmes, rarely agree on anything, but both commented on the air that Thomas' family should have the right to choose his therapy.

The next major media highpoint came on Friday, January 28 when NBC Nightly News broadcast a two and a half minute segment on the case, reported by NBC political correspondent David Bloom. Featured in the report were James and Thomas Navarro and the boy's mother Donna; Burzynski; an orthodox MD who dismissed the Burzynski therapy; and candidates Keyes and front runner for the nomination George W. Bush. Bloom introduced Bush's soundbite: "Enter the politicians - first, Republican Alan Keyes. Now, Texas Governor George W. Bush, urging the FDA to reconsider, arguing it's the family's choice, not the Federal Government's." Bush was then shown on camera speaking with reporters at a campaign stop in New Hampshire: "The parents are absolutely worried to death about radiation and what it means to the boy. I hope the FDA would reconsider."

Stay tuned for further developments. 


1 posted on 01/06/2002 8:53:39 PM PST by Gelato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Gelato
Freedom Bump
2 posted on 01/06/2002 9:00:43 PM PST by Fish out of Water
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gelato,Benighted,seattlesue,Keyes For President,rdf,Clinton's a Liar
Oh, how terribly sad.....I remember so well how Dr. Keyes spoke to generate support for the FDA to drop their damn rules and let this little fella have a chance.

May God bless his family and shower his great love on his new little angel.

3 posted on 01/06/2002 9:02:32 PM PST by Rowdee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gelato
I recently met a pediatric cancer survivor. He had been subjected to the full range of chemo and radiation therapy. The damage done to his nervous and endocrine systems was incredible. He is virtually blind and nearly deaf but he can communicate with people pretty effectively on a one-to-one basis. At age 17, he was just a little shorter than my 5 year old and was operating on about the same mental level. He will never develop beyond his current abilities.

Considering that this was considered a good outcome, I can't blame the Navarros for seeking out alternative treatments.

4 posted on 01/06/2002 9:06:04 PM PST by FormerLib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance; rdf
Yesterday, I came across the picture of Thomas Navarro and his father James at the GOP debate (with Tom H. on the front row), and today I followed the links to find out what happened to the little boy. How sad to see that he died.
5 posted on 01/06/2002 9:07:21 PM PST by Gelato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gelato
You know, this really pisses me off.....Compassionate Use Approval! BULLSHIT!

When I raised livestock, if we had an animal that didn't respond to the generally accepted medications, our Vet could prescribe unauthorized drugs for use!

And guess what! They could do it without going through the 'generally accepted' routine, too.

But in this Country where we approve of slaughtering 1 and a half million unborn babies each year, you have to be ruled TERMINALLY DYING before you can be treated by something other than what the hell is killing you!

I plan to bookmark this one---the next idiot that suggests government cares more than parents will have it shoved down their throats!

6 posted on 01/06/2002 9:09:49 PM PST by Rowdee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib
I recently met a pediatric cancer survivor. He had been subjected to the full range of chemo and radiation therapy. The damage done to his nervous and endocrine systems was incredible. He is virtually blind and nearly deaf but he can communicate with people pretty effectively on a one-to-one basis. At age 17, he was just a little shorter than my 5 year old and was operating on about the same mental level. He will never develop beyond his current abilities.

That's sad. Certainly there's a better treatment out there, one that would've better helped the 17-year-old and Thomas Navarro.

7 posted on 01/06/2002 9:12:27 PM PST by Gelato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Rowdee
But in this Country where we approve of slaughtering 1 and a half million unborn babies each year, you have to be ruled TERMINALLY DYING before you can be treated by something other than what the hell is killing you!

"Compassionate," indeed.

8 posted on 01/06/2002 9:16:34 PM PST by Gelato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Gelato
What about the situation where the parents insist on no treatment at all in a blatantly obvious case of an illness that can be successfully cured with little or no side effects? How is the line drawn?
9 posted on 01/06/2002 9:22:58 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gelato
By blocking potentially life saving treatments, the FDA is likely responsible for more American deaths in a given year than anything Osama bin Laden could ever hope to achieve.

Where's the outrage?

10 posted on 01/06/2002 9:25:08 PM PST by rebel freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gelato;Fish out of Water;Rowdee;FormerLib;Rowdee;HiTech RedNeck;rebel freeper
John Stossel made a very powerful point on one of his specials. I don't think I can describe it with near the impact that Stossel did, but here goes anyways...

The FDA held a highly effective life-saving drug off the market despite it being successful used in several European countries. Some kind of bureaucratic red-tape/snafu kept the drug from being available in United States.

Stossel continues, last year seven thousand peopled died from xxxxx. Doesn't that mean that the FDA killed seven thousand Americans last year?

11 posted on 01/06/2002 9:40:18 PM PST by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gelato
Burzynski is a fraud and should not be given the time of day. Too many people have lost their chance through traditional medicine by wasting time on quack treatments. Sad story.
12 posted on 01/06/2002 9:43:33 PM PST by Spyder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
I'm not sure if there can be an absolute standard in the case you mentioned. It seems the only thing that can be done is to allow judges and juries to assess each individual case. The purpose of law is to balance the natural rights of individuals (including parents) and those of "society." Neither side has absolute license to do whatever they want.

As a rule, I believe there needs to be more flexibility for parents to choose whatever treatments they view as best for their children. Some, for religious reasons, might choose faith in God in place of medical treatment. This is not the same as simply not caring about their children's needs, or choosing to deny them any care. In such a case of negligence, the parents should be held liable.

13 posted on 01/06/2002 9:46:47 PM PST by Gelato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Spyder
Quite possibly when the only expected survival scenario with "orthodox" medicine is a brief, horribly crippled life with misery largely created by the treatment itself, a harmless quack treatment is not as horrible as it is cracked up to be. The problem is where to draw the line.
14 posted on 01/06/2002 9:52:17 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Spyder
Dr. Burzynski has grossed tens of million of dollars from "patients."

See also: Is There A Duty To Recommend Quack Cures?

15 posted on 01/06/2002 9:54:20 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Spyder
Burzynski is a fraud and should not be given the time of day. Too many people have lost their chance through traditional medicine by wasting time on quack treatments. Sad story.

That may be, but parents do have the right to seek out medical alternatives for their children.

In the case of Thomas Navarro, the standard treatment might itself be said to be a sort of "fraud," since the results would have potentially left the child as little more than a vegetable.

16 posted on 01/06/2002 9:55:30 PM PST by Gelato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Spyder
Dr. Burzynski has grossed tens of million of dollars from "patients."

See also: Is There A Duty To Recommend Quack Cures?

17 posted on 01/06/2002 9:55:30 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Spyder
Burzynski is a fraud and should not be given the time of day. Too many people have lost their chance through traditional medicine by wasting time on quack treatments. Sad story.

That may be, but parents do have the right to seek out medical alternatives for their children.

In the case of Thomas Navarro, the standard treatment might itself be said to be a sort of "fraud," since the results would have potentially left the child as little more than a vegetable.

18 posted on 01/06/2002 9:56:20 PM PST by Gelato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Zon
I think the situation of "controversial" drugs like this (or for that matter most so called "recreational" drugs and treatments that are now banned) would be better handled to put them in a special category where they are not banned any more, BUT any prescriber has to have special insurance to cover enhanced liability, and clearly understandable warnings about known and suspected dangers and alternatives have to first be given and clearly agreed by the patient or his legal guardian. There is, however, a point to which even this should not go (such as suicide poisons or so called "sex change" mutilations).
19 posted on 01/06/2002 10:01:38 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Spyder
Of course it is YOUR opinion about Byrzynski.

BTW, the 'traditional' medical group gave the little fella 14 days to live....apparently using Byrzynski's technique, he lived about another 7 months.....imagine the change for the little guy had the friggin government got out of the way of the parents....but OH NO.....poppa government thinks its better to use the traditional method so they could assure his little system would be bombarded with MORE cancerous tumors.

Mr. and Mrs. Navarro had searched all all forms of treatments and rejected the traditional because of how it would affect him!

20 posted on 01/06/2002 10:02:28 PM PST by Rowdee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Gelato
We did what we could, and we pray for his soul, and for comfort for the family.

May God have mercy on us all ...

Richard F.

21 posted on 01/06/2002 10:03:24 PM PST by rdf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
..."Dr. Burzynski has grossed tens of million of dollars from "patients." "...

And that is the extent of your comments? As though no other doctor has EVER earned a buck from all these years of pretending to actually be looking for cures for cancer?

Does Dr. Bryzynski continue to practice medicine in the State of Texas or not? As I recall in reading so much about this after Dr. Keyes brought it out during the debates, no one seems much interested in suing him on the grounds of 'quackery'...something about evidence? They did stop shipments out of state under interstate commerce regs apparently.

22 posted on 01/06/2002 10:13:32 PM PST by Rowdee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Askel5,
Weren't you interested in this story back then?
23 posted on 01/06/2002 10:16:40 PM PST by Rowdee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gelato
Stanislaw Burzynski...uses a nontoxic alternative treatment called antineoplastons and has battled for 20 years for approval of his methods.

The FDA's Vendetta Against Dr. Burzynski

By Dean Mouscher,
Director, Clinical Trials
Burzynski Institute

Stanislaw R. Burzynski is an MD with a Ph.D. in biochemistry. In 1967, while studying blood as a graduate student, he found certain peptides that had never been described before.

Comparing the blood of patients with different diseases, Dr. Burzynski found that over 98% of cancer patients were deficient in the peptides he had found-often with blood levels of only 2% of those of healthy individuals. This led him to suspect that these compounds-or a lack thereof-were implicated in the development of neoplastic (cancerous) disease.

Most cancer experts believe we all develop cancer cells hundreds if not millions of times in our lifetimes. Given the trillions of developing cells, the millions of errors that can occur in the differentiation (maturing) process of each cell, and our constant exposure to carcinogenic substances (smoke, car fumes, radiation, etc.), the laws of probability dictate that mis-developing cells must occur frequently in the life of each individual. It stands to reason that a healthy body has a corrective system to "reprogram" newly-developed cancer cells into normal differentiation pathways before the cancer can take hold.

Dr. Burzynski postulated that healthy organisms have just such a corrective mechanism, which he termed the "Biochemical Defense System." He called the substances produced by this system "antineoplastons." Their purpose is to "reprogram" cancer cells to die like normal cells. Healthy cells are not affected.

Dr. Burzynski continued his research at Baylor University until 1977, when he felt he was ready to begin treating advanced cancer patients with the peptides he had discovered. After getting a written opinion from his lawyer that doing so would not violate any state or federal laws as long as he treated patients only in Texas, Dr. Burzynski began to give antineoplastons to patients with hopeless cancers-often with dramatic results.

The FDA Seeks An Injunction

In 1983 however, the FDA went to court for an injunction to stop Dr. Burzynski from manufacturing or using antineoplastons in his practice. U.S. District Court Judge Gabrielle McDonald turned them down. In an 18-page decision, Judge McDonald made it clear that Dr. Burzynski could continue to "manufacture, package, sell, and distribute antineoplastons, so long as it occurs wholly intrastate."

Ignoring Judge McDonald's decision, the FDA tried to stop Dr. Burzynski by writing dozens of letters to Senators, Congressmen, insurance companies and pharmaceutical firms. These letters contained lies and distortions so outrageous that on October 23, 1985 Judge McDonald issued a Cease and Desist order, commanding the FDA to stop issuing false and misleading information about Dr. Burzynski.

A Series Of Raids And Grand Jury Investigations

In 1985, FDA agents and armed Federal Marshalls raided Dr. Burzynski's clinic and seized all his patient records-200,000 documents in all. In order to continue treating patients with advanced cancer, Dr. Burzynski had to install a copier-at his expense-at FDA headquarters and hire someone to shuttle back and forth, making copies of his records and bringing them back to the clinic. Dr. Burzynski had to make appointments with the FDA to make copies of his own documents.

Later in 1985, Federal prosecutors representing the FDA presented everything they seized in the raid-plus another 100,000 documents subpoenaed shortly after the raid-to a Federal Grand Jury. Their investigation of Dr. Burzynski lasted nine months, but prosecutors couldn't convince the Grand Jury that there was probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. No indictment was returned.

In 1990, the U.S. Attorney's office in Houston, representing the FDA, convened another grand jury to investigate Dr. Burzynski, again for alleged violations of Judge McDonald's order. To the FDA's dismay, this Grand Jury also refused to indict Dr. Burzynski.

More Raids And Grand Juries

In 1993, the FDA again raided the Burzynski Research Institute because of alleged bacterial contamination of antineoplastons, but tests proved conclusively that there was no contamination.

In 1994, U.S. Attorneys-again representing the FDA-convened a third Grand Jury to investigate Dr. Burzynski. And for the third time, a skeptical Grand Jury refused to return an indictment. The main casualty this time was the Assistant U.S. Attorney on the case, who was removed for prosecutorial misconduct involving abusive and improper use of subpoenas.

The latest chapter in the FDA's twelve-year campaign to stop Dr. Burzynski from treating patients with antineoplastons kicked off on March 24, 1995 with another raid on the clinic. Seven federal agents herded employees into a room and kept them there until they filled out forms with personal information. They then spent seven hours rifling through file cabinets and drawers, leaving with Boxes of patient records and other documents.

Shortly thereafter the FDA began serving clinic employees with subpoenas commanding them to testify before a Federal Grand Jury investigating Dr. Burzynski. To date, federal prosecutors representing the FDA have subpoenaed nine employees including Dr. Burzynski. In addition, they have ordered him to turn over tens of thousands of pages of documents, including more patient records and diagnostic films.

An Arbitrary Fishing Expedition

The law prohibits Grand Juries from "arbitrary fishing expeditions". Yet that is exactly what federal prosecutors are engaged in. Besides patient records-many of which have already been presented four times to various government investigators-prosecutors have subpoenaed "any and all agreements, draft agreements, proposals, correspondence, notes, memos, tape recordings, notes of conversations, telephone messages, reports, raw data, studies or other items to, from, or with any foreign or domestic pharmaceutical company or university, including contact person's name, title and phone number."

While this information is of no use in investigating criminal activity, it gives the FDA the opportunity to write letters to everyone they uncover, letting them know that Dr. Burzynski is the target of a federal investigation and to issue subpoenas to some of these people. This is more than just speculation. It is the exact behavior that sparked a 1985 "Cease and Desist" order against the FDA by US District Court Judge Gabrielle McDonald.

And so, on June 15 1995, prosecutor Amy LeCocq subpoenaed a huge Dutch pharmaceutical conglomerate-which has conducted negotiations with Dr. Burzynski-for all correspondence, memos, documents or other records it had regarding Dr. Burzynski or anyone associated with him. The obvious purpose of this subpoena was to frighten the company-which does a large business in the U.S.-into having no further contact with Dr. Burzynski.

Prosecutors have also subpoenaed all patient billing records, again with no time limitation whatever. Dr. Burzynski has been treating patients since 1977. They have subpoenaed his accountants for every conceivable document an accountant can possess (again with no limitation on time), a classic fishing expedition. Prosecutors have even subpoenaed the names and addresses of every person who has ever received a brochure from Dr. Burzynski! As if that weren't enough, the subpoena went on to demand "Any other lists of persons", an absurdly general and burdensome request.

FDA Harassment, Illegal Actions And Terrorism

Besides throwing the entire clinic into chaos, wasting thousands of hours of employee time, and terrifying advanced cancer patients who don't know whether they will be able to continue getting the only medicine that has been able to help them, the grand jury's actions have severely threatened Dr. Burzynski's ability to practice medicine. Without patients' previous MRIs and CAT scans, Dr. Burzynski has nothing to which he can compare new scans, and no way of knowing if patients' tumors are growing or shrinking.

Moreover, the FDA has been careful to seize films and medical records of Dr. Burzynski's most successful cases, crippling his ability to defend himself by confiscating his single most valuable asset-proof of the anti-cancer activity of antineoplastons.

In the current case there has been illegal use of subpoenas as well. Dr. Ralph Moss, an award-winning journalist and author of books about cancer, was subpoenaed and ordered to produce every document in his possession-electronic, magnetic, printed or otherwise-relating to Dr. Burzynski. Dr. Moss has written favorably about Dr. Burzynski in the past.

Unfortunately for Amy Lecocq, the prosecutor in charge of this case, her subpoena of Dr. Moss violated at least six federal laws governing subpoenas of journalists. Such violations carry a penalty of administrative reprimand or other disciplinary action. When Dr. Moss pointed this out to Lecocq and gave her the opportunity to withdraw the subpoena, she did so with alacrity.

It's been said that a prosecutor can get a Grand Jury to indict virtually anyone. But despite the avalanche of documents supplied by the government to four Grand Juries, it has yet to convince any of them of probable cause to believe Dr. Burzynski has committed a crime. And so, unable to stop him legally, the FDA seems determined to harass him to death.

The NCI Report on Dr. Burzynski

The FDA's actions are all the more outrageous because their own oncology division has granted Dr. Burzynski permission to conduct Phase II clinical trials! In addition the National Cancer Institute (NCI)-following a visit by seven NCI experts to Dr. Burzynski's Houston clinic for a review of patient records-confirmed several remissions in patients with "hopeless" brain tumors after treatment with antineoplastons. Their report states that "The site visit team documented anti-cancer activity in this best-case series and determined that Phase II trials are warranted to determine the response rate."

In other words, the question is no longer "Do antineoplastons work?"; it is: "How consistently do they work?"

And yet, despite the NCI report, despite the fact that the FDA's own scientists wish to see antineoplastons tested, the FDA's "enforcers" remain obsessed with shutting Dr. Burzynski down.

How long will this continue? Until your outrage puts a stop to it.

LEF Magazine September 1995


Burzynski Acquitted Of Fraud
Judge Declares Mistrial on Other Charges

While the famed cancer researcher has emerged unscathed from this most-recent government harrassment, there is still no consensus on how to handle the man or his treatments.

On March 3 [1997], a U.S. District Court judge in Houston acquitted famed cancer researcher Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski on all 34 fraud charges brought against him by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for lack of evidence.

Then Judge Sim Lake declared a mistrial on the remaining 41 charges because the jury was deadlocked after six days of deliberation, with six jurors favoring acquittal on all counts, five favoring conviction on all counts, and one undecided.

Afterwards, the government said it would retry the doctor on the other counts, but patients and supporters of Burzynski vowed to fight that decision. At press time, prosecutors had not announced any new attempt to try Burzynski.

"The government has been harassing Dr. Burzynski and his patients for more than 15 years," said Steve Siegel, head of the Burzynski Patient Group. "They put forth their best case and their best lawyers and still could not win because they had no evidence. I hope they will realize it's time to leave Dr. Burzynski alone and fight cancer, not cancer patients."

Burzynski has been under investigation by the U.S. Attorney's office in Houston and the FDA for more than 15 years. Authorities have alleged that he illegally dispenses a class of experimental cancer drugs, called antineoplastons, that he develops and manufactures, and distributes at his clinic in Houston. Antineoplastons are synthesized versions of peptides found in human blood and urine. In the current case, Burzynski was on trial for violations of interstate commerce by treating non-Texans in Texas, selling drugs unapproved by the FDA, and filing fraudulent insurance claims via the U.S. mail.

The trial involved 20 days of testimony from more than 50 government witnesses. After the insurance fraud charges were thrown out and the jurors deadlocked on the remaining issues, Burzynski emerged unscathed from all charges.

"This is quite a reaffirmation for us that we never did anything wrong," said Dean Mouscher, clinical trials director at the Burzynski Research Institute, in Stafford, TX. "The issue for the FDA was one of control." Burzynski's antineoplaston therapy is a nontoxic alternative to chemotherapy, which-ironically, given the fact that Burzynski was on trial for violations surrounding its use-is now approved by the FDA for 71 Phase 2 clinical trials. Antineoplastons have been recognized by the National Cancer Institute and the FDA as safe and potentially effective against various types of cancer.

Rita Star of the Burzynski Patient Association reported that the three prosecutors attempted to paint Burzynski as a greedy man, who put very little money into research, and who violated the rules of science by "not being a team player."

Chief prosecutor Mike Clark said repeatedly that Burzynski "just didn't follow the rules" by defiantly introducing an unapproved cancer drug into interstate commerce. Prosecutor George Tallichet said that Burzynski had not conformed to the standards of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and urged jurors to enforce the law. He tried to depict Burzynski as a con man who preys on, profits from, and hides behind his patients.

The prosecution called as witnesses 19 relatives of Burzynski patients who have died, but none of them had anything bad to say about him. Instead, they insisted that the defendant had given them complete and honest information, and that he operates a high-quality, health care facility. Some of Burzynski's patients and their relatives have launched a crusade to raise money for his defense and to push the FDA and Congress into changing the law. Many of them rallied at the courthouse in his support.

A Lack of Victims

If the government does decide to retry this landmark case, Dr. Burzynski could still get life imprisonment on the interstate shipment charges. The mail fraud charges Lake threw out cannot be appealed.

Jury foreman John Coan, one of the six jurors who voted for acquittal from the start of the deliberations, said, "I think this was a government witch hunt. I couldn't find any victims."

Burzynski's patients collected 150,000 signatures on petitions protesting the trial. Four Congressional hearings have been held about FDA misconduct in the Burzynski case.

Despite years of unrelenting attack by the FDA, the efficacy of Burzynski's therapy has yet to be determined. The FDA has repeatedly raided Burzynski's clinic, seizing documents that are never returned and preventing any type of scientific evaluation of efficacy. In fact, while the FDA enforcement division has worked to stop Burzynski, the FDA drug evaluation division has expanded his authority to conduct clinical trials on terminally ill cancer patients.

Controversy Brings Fame

If the FDA enforcement division's objective is to stop cancer patients from going to Burzynski, their actions have had the opposite effect. The many FDA attacks against Burzynski have made him a national celebrity. His once obscure clinic is constantly receiving calls from prospective patients, and he has appeared on numerous TV shows, including "CBS Evening News," "CBS Morning News," "48 Hours," "20/20" and on CNN. "Hard Copy" and other tabloid shows have covered the trial, and there has been intense coverage in The New York Times.

The news reports have resulted in increasing numbers of cancer patients traveling to Houston to see him. The FDA does not dispute the National Cancer Institute Review showing cures of several brain tumor patients.

Even taxpayers who favor FDA regulation are now questioning why the government would spend millions of dollars trying to stop a cancer therapy from being sold and, in the process, create a public relations campaign that's turned it into a multimillion-dollar enterprise.

The ability of companies to benefit from being attacked by the FDA is not new. The Life Extension Foundation is ten times larger than it was when the FDA first attacked it in 1987, which is largely the result largely of free publicity generated as a result of the FDA's continuous attacks.

Future FDA Activities: A Modest Proposal

Based upon the three grand juries that were impaneled in the ongoing prosecution of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, plus the use of the FBI, the Attorney General's office, the U.S. Attorneys Office, the National Cancer Institute and the FDA over the past 15 years, it can be estimated that at least $8 million have been spent in the attempt to destroy Burzynski.

The government could pay for the costs of 50 astrocytoma (grade 4) patients who volunteer to use Burzynski's experimental antineoplaston treatment in lieu of conventional therapy. These patients will ordinarily not live more than 12 months, and conventional therapy has been proven useless in treating this form of brain cancer. Burzynski has reported particularly good success with this type of cancer.

The government could pay for the treatment as long as these 50 test subjects lived. If most of the patients were alive after a year, a breakthrough cancer treatment could be announced. If most of the patients are dead within 12 months, then this report would appear in Life Extension magazine and every other reputable alternative medicine publication.

What we have now is a media circus. Patients who were successfully treated by Burzynski are appearing on TV, and convincing other cancer patients to stampede to Houston. The FDA demands that Burzynski take patients for clinical trials who have already failed conventional therapies, and Burzynski insists that his therapy will not work on these types of patients. So after 15 years and about $8 million in tax dollars, we still don't have definitive evidence on the value of Burzynski's antineoplaston therapy. For terminally ill cancer patients and their families, the Burzynski fiasco could be considered a government-induced disaster.

LEF Magazine June 1997



24 posted on 01/06/2002 10:17:15 PM PST by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MSSC6644
FYI
25 posted on 01/06/2002 10:19:13 PM PST by Rowdee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Rowdee
Thanks Rowdee, I see you've already paged CaL.

May his soul rest in peace.

26 posted on 01/06/2002 10:25:44 PM PST by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
I think the situation of "controversial" drugs like this (or for that matter most so called "recreational" drugs and treatments that are now banned) would be better handled to put them in a special category where they are not banned any more, BUT any prescriber has to have special insurance to cover enhanced liability, and clearly understandable warnings about known and suspected dangers and alternatives have to first be given and clearly agreed by the patient or his legal guardian.

That's an excellent suggestion. The main thing that seems to hold up the FDA's approval of new treatment drugs is the issue of liability. A system similar to the one you suggest would enable patients the freedom to choose and to take risks, while at the same time holding the drug-makers responsible.

(Of course, I would omit the "recreational drugs" part--but that's an entirely different issue.)

27 posted on 01/06/2002 10:27:03 PM PST by Gelato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Rowdee
Cancer Quack Indicted by Federal Grand Jury
28 posted on 01/06/2002 10:30:19 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: rdf
I remember seeing the family on national TV during the election. They seem like very good people. My heart goes out to them for their terrible loss.
29 posted on 01/06/2002 10:37:14 PM PST by Gelato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Rowdee
Years ago, the majority of little children with leukemia died despite very toxic regiments. Now, thanks to the tireless, painful efforts of pediatric oncologists, the survival rate is good, resulting in healthy children. Unfortunately, in the process of killing the malignant cells, normal cells are affected and after 20 to 40 yrs, new malignancies may develop. New drugs are evaluated every day.

The FDA has a very difficult job to do balancing proven, effective drugs against the patient's urgency. They have relaxed many stringent rules in the face of AIDS drugs.

No doubt alternative medicine has value but let's hold it up to the light of research and do double-blind studies before we cause unnecessary pain, damage and expense. The reason conventional drugs are so expensive in the U.S. is because of all the R and D. Anybody can cut up some organic roots and make a claim but it takes painstaking work to decifer the truth about each drug and its numerous effects, side-effects, routes of metabolism, etc. This has become a sacred cow to many Americans. Too bad. They stand in the way of clear evidence instead of hearsay arguments.

30 posted on 01/06/2002 10:46:12 PM PST by Kay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Kay
The FDA, as with any and every fedgov bureaucracy, is intent upon retaining and enhancing its powers! That is the first priority. If the FDA really gave a damn about cancer patients....why spend and encourage to be spent , what was the figure, something like $8 million to try to get this doctor.....and some of the trials were going on even as he was approved to run clinical tests!

Yep...I know all about those new drugs and how well the FDA works....NOT. I know of an orthopedic surgeon who with others had come up with something for arthritis--course they'd have been in the poor house dancing to the FDA's fiddle. Ditto the doctor and scientist I knew who came up with a treatment for lip blisters...alas, there aren't enough patients in the world who suffer with this crap to warrant the big $$$$$ spending declared necessary by the FDA, though most of what it was all about was approved for use in domestic pets.

Kay, its my firm belief and conviction that there is a segment of the medical/pharmacological fields that find it to their advantage to not find a cure for cancer! Multi-billion dollar or is that trillion dollar industries!

When a patient has been given 14 days to live, after having gone through surgical procedures and then radiation/chemo which only caused additional cancerous growths to appear, what chance is there that anything will turn around.

I can tell you, I 'lived' with my best friend's death due to cancer and the marvelous wonderful treatments she got.....touch the skin and it looked like someone beat the hell out of her; no appetite, nauseated, dry heaves, diarrhea, loss of bladder control. I saw her go from an out-going person, who was a talented artist, who put on classes around town and added on to her home so she could hold classes there to someone who merely wanted to die to get it over with.

When a doctor says you got a year to live regardless of what we do, why do we have to stand on rules and regulations? Why would we worry that a person might take a drug that wasn't quite pure enough, or one that might make them a little high? This is as insane as telling my 89 year old Dad, who has drank coffee since he was weaned from his Mother's breast, to quit drinking coffee cause its bad for him.....who gives a damn at this point in his life--like he's got to worry about dying!

31 posted on 01/06/2002 11:18:34 PM PST by Rowdee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
I know what the FDA has tried to do....but he is still practicing medicine, is he not?
32 posted on 01/06/2002 11:20:59 PM PST by Rowdee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
You got it. The choices should be up to the parties involved. Without nanny government telling people what to do and what not to do, people do quite well looking out for their own best interest and that of their loved ones.

Also, without nanny government abusing business on one hand and catering to other businesses on the other hand the insurance companies would have to meet the demands of the market -- people looking out for themselves and their loved ones would demand their heads on a platter if an insurance company initiated force, fraud or coercion against their customers. For insurance companies it's the equivalent of shooting oneself in both feet.

33 posted on 01/06/2002 11:21:00 PM PST by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Sandy

These letters contained lies and distortions so outrageous that on October 23, 1985 Judge McDonald issued a Cease and Desist order, commanding the FDA to stop issuing false and misleading information about Dr. Burzynski.

Fire the FDA agents that defrauded Dr. Burzynski. Slapping them on the wrist and scolding them sends the message throughout government that, while such behavior is wrong, other politicians and bureaucrats --m parasitical elites --  can get way with doing similar and often worse. In short, that is how politicians and bureaucrats earned the label, "parasitical elite".

And it surely would have put a quick-stop to the abuse that followed. 

Theater of the absurd.

Even taxpayers who favor FDA regulation are now questioning why the government would spend millions of dollars trying to stop a cancer therapy from being sold and, in the process, create a public relations campaign that's turned it into a multimillion-dollar enterprise.

The ability of companies to benefit from being attacked by the FDA is not new. The Life Extension Foundation is ten times larger than it was when the FDA first attacked it in 1987, which is largely the result largely of free publicity generated as a result of the FDA's continuous attacks.


34 posted on 01/06/2002 11:41:52 PM PST by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Rowdee
As though no other doctor has EVER earned a buck from all these years of pretending to actually be looking for cures for cancer?

Speaking as a physician, I accuse you of scurrilous conspiracy mongering of the lowest sort. I don't dismiss alternative treatments out of hand, and I don't know enough about the facts of this case to make an informed judgment, but I do know that I have never once met a physician who would "pretend" to look for a cure for cancer with no intention of finding one.

I do no research to speak of myself, but many of my colleagues have devoted their lives to finding cures for cancer and other deadly diseases. There is not one of them who would conceal a proven life-saving treatment.

Especially ridiculous is the popular notion that the AMA suppresses medical discoveries for the financial benefit of its members. Only half or less of us belong to the AMA anyway, and none of us would obey an order from them to treat any patient with anything less than our best available science.

This kind of conspiracy mongering is usually a distraction put forth by greedy quacks who are looting the pockets of desperate patients with terminal illnesses. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for repeating it.

-ccm

35 posted on 01/06/2002 11:43:44 PM PST by ccmay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Gelato
Frankly, I favor abolishing the FDA, and pulling the AMA's teeth to boot. There is quite a "cancer industry," and I have heard it said that there are more people making a living off cancer than there are people with the disease.

As far as I am concerned, there are many other effective treatments out there for cancer--and other diseases--beyond what the FDA and AMA have approved. As far as I am concerned, I have the right to whatever treatment I am willing to undergo and pay for. The AMA and FDA have killed quite a lot of people by keeping them away from treatments that might have worked.

And, if there were truly a free market in medicine, whether alternative or orthodox, we would probably be able to get insurance that paid for unorthodox treatments because there would be quite a demand for it.

I'd certainly rather have unorthodox treatment than the cut-drug-and-burn that the AMA and FDA have approved. Cancer runs rampant through both sides of my family, and I checked out alternative medicine after watching an uncle get mutilated and burned after being discovered to have laryngeal cancer. I figured there had to be a better way than what he went through.

It's about FREEDOM, folks. Perhaps to you, my choice of treatment is "quackery," but it's my body and my right. Thomas Navarro might be alive and healthy today if the FDA and/or AMA had not meddled.

36 posted on 01/06/2002 11:55:53 PM PST by pbmaltzman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ccmay
I know a man that has two PhDs in physics. He worked at Dupont for twelve years and was a highly respected senior research chemist. Typically only 20% of career scientist at Dupont develop a product that goes to market. While this man in just twelve years had three products that he took all the way to market and they're still being used today. I don't think I've ever met a man with near as high integrity, honesty and moral fortitude than him.

In 1968 a team of scientists were developing a very promising cure for cancerous tumors. It basically consisted of injecting less-than-hair-width fibers near the tumor. They would grow around the tumor and slow releasing drugs would emaciate the tumor.

That project was squashed by the FDA. Why? The bottom line is that a few FDA agents wanted to fill up their success-case file drawers to justify their jobs -- that's all it was. That was thirty three year ago. How many hundreds, perhaps thousands or tens-of-thousands of people have needlessly suffered and died prematurely because of a few criminal FDA agents sought to fill their file drawers?

37 posted on 01/07/2002 12:05:41 AM PST by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Zon
Sorry, I don't believe it. The FDA is not perfect but they are not a criminal agency. Give me a break. You're not a perfect person and I hope that people don't go around exaggerating your inadequacies as if you have no reason to live. You are very naive if you think we should have a medical free-for-all.
38 posted on 01/07/2002 6:45:41 AM PST by Kay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Kay
It's really a tough situation. On the one hand, many patients desire more freedom in choosing their medical treatments, and on the other hand, the options they get need to be as safe as possible.

It's true that "nobody's perfect," and we can't expect the FDA to be. But that very fact is reason enough to allow alternatives to treatments that the FDA has looked at and approved. The FDA's not perfect. This means that not everything it approves is safe, and that there's no way it could have looked into all the possible treatments for every disease.

Maybe something along the lines of HiTech RedNeck's suggestion in reply #19 (without the "recreational drugs" part) would be a viable solution.

39 posted on 01/07/2002 8:03:36 AM PST by Gelato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ccmay
Sorry you feel I was discussing you or your immediate circle of medical friends. So, I'll say I'm sorry upfront here because I'm quite sure you will take further offense by what I'm writing in this post.

But please, let's don't put on the 'holier than thou' mantle. We all know physicians take an oath to do no harm; their objective is honorable-- it's to save lives, correct? Therefore, we can state categotically that "no physician would EVER intentionally do any harm to a patient', right? Was that a 'no' that I heard...what's that....you can't agree with the statement because you don't know them all or the statement is inaccurate because you've heard of a guy, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who goes by the nickname of Dr. Death?

Rather than getting into the "I accuse you of ________" and my retorting about your thin-skin or shoes fitting and wearing them, yada yada yada, would you mind having a reasonable discussion on this, or any other case? For instance, Doctor...if a patient is given a sentence of death--in this case, apparently, it was a foregone conclusion that the 'treatment of the medical profession's choice' would cause additional tumors in the brain, does it really make any difference what treatment he/she seeks or is given (other than injecting death)? Or even in other cases, where a patient wants to smoke marijuana? Who gives a damn at this point? The person is dying, for crying out loud.

What I see, and many others do as well, is that a bunch of special interests trying to exert total control to maintain their little fiefdoms. It is something akin to a guy struggling across the bloody desert; finally making it to an oasis-- where there's water to wet his dry, cracked lips and to quench his parched dry throat; he struggles mightily with the last ounce of his being to make it to the edge of the pool while begging for something moist to wet his lips and parched throat. Just as he gets there and manages to flop his hand over the edge of the pool, an EPA agent stomps his boot down on the guy's wrist and says, 'Sorry, sir...not until we've done a complete water purity analysis test'.

Now this EPA bureaucratic agent happens to be one of the really good guys....so he gently, carefully drags the guy over to the over to the shade of a palm tree and props the man up.....and then proceeds to watch him die while he patiently waits for FEDEX to deliver the results of the water purity test!

The insistence that this child be put through procedures that the parents had studied and rejected as too damaging for him (they were concerned with quality of life issues for little Thomas, too)--loss of vision, brain damage, normal growth rates are the three things I recall them talking about before--and then having met the FDA's guideline that when he's 14 days' from dying, it's ok to try something else. And for the bastards to use the words "compassionate use or authorization'! Are you the least bit offended by this? Isn't there something wrong with this picture?

Well, of course, there is. But I don't see a group of doctors or lawyers or much of anyone else demanding action by the government representatives we elect to put a halt to this bullspit!

And one other thing, Doc....if your shorts get twisted in a wad over that, you'd be strangling yourself if you heard what many patients say about doctors after they leave their offices--about how rude, how abrupt, how they don't let you ask questions, and heaven forbid how doctors allow their staff to overbook doctor's time while the patient can just sit there and rot as their time means nothing; that when finally taken back to the 'room', they get to experience even more of the wasting their time waiting for Doc who is so more important!

40 posted on 01/07/2002 9:49:55 AM PST by Rowdee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Rowdee
I pray that the Lord blesses this family and gives them comfort and peace in their time of grief.
41 posted on 01/07/2002 1:34:50 PM PST by Keyes For President
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Keyes For President
Me, too, KFP...thinking back over this whole disastrous business with young Thomas, we had people suggesting that these people leave our country and go to Mexico for treatment. While I'm sure those folks were tryinig to offer up solutions, I was thinking, "why should US citizens have to leave their own country to get the same treatment in Mexico?

The parents fought the government's solution because they wanted what was best for little Thomas; otherwise, they wouldn't have tried to fight for something different. I daresay these parents well knew what they were facing with this because it seems they were well informed, much as our own brain cancer patient, Mr. Confetti Man.

And how sad to remember the brouhaha created when the current administration head refused to sign the letter as all the other candidates did!

42 posted on 01/07/2002 2:05:20 PM PST by Rowdee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Gelato
Very sad...the death of a child is among the saddest things that can possibly happen to any family.

I had the honor and the privilege, as you said, to meet and spend time with this precious family...little Thomas was such a joy...and it was obvious that his folks loved him dearly.

When Dr. Keyes took precious time from the debate and from his campaign, to highlight their plight, my respect for the man rose to new heights.

I have lost 2 children myself...my heart goes out to the Navarro family...They are now at the top of my prayer list...

Regards...EV

43 posted on 01/07/2002 2:16:56 PM PST by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kay
Sorry, I don't believe it. 

No need to be sorry unless you're implying that I lied. But I don't think that's the case. Nor have I been hoodwinked by the man. Dr. Wallace retired from Dupont at relatively young age of his own free will and on excellent terms. He'd still be working there except he set out to pioneer a solution to much more pressing problem than anything he would be faced with working at Dupont. While he still has strong ties to bio-medical field it is far from being the focus of his work for the last 33 years. I'm not trying to convince you to believe what I wrote. Rather, to convince you that I have not been hoodwinked by a quack doctor. Whether you believe me or not is neither hear nor there.

The FDA is not perfect but they are not a criminal agency. Give me a break. 

They're not criminal in the conventional sense. But neither were several of Bill Clintons crimes, crimes in the conventional sense. The FDA does more harm than good. On net wide-scope accounting it is a drain on society. I know that for a fact. Whether you believe me or not is irrelevant. For that matter weather I believe that or not is irrelevant because it is what it is. I am far from being the only person that knows the FDA is a net drain on society. Obviously you and I have not researched the same information over the last eleven years. I have no vested interest in exposing the FDA for what it aside from reigning in government abuse. I get paid nothing and receive no perks. I don't have any hostilities for them. To the contrary, I'd like to help the FDA and the people that work there. Before that can even begin to happen it's imperative to focus on the overall; work to identify the biggest most pervasive problems and identify the causes. Some lessons in life are learned the hard way. But they must be learned. Sometimes that calls for being resolute and undeterred while at the same time having compassion, empathy and sympathy.

You're not a perfect person and I hope that people don't go around exaggerating your inadequacies as if you have no reason to live. 

Whoa there Nellie, simmer down. I never even remotely implied that any person has no reason to live. You conjured up that implication out of nothing but thin air. No person is perfect. That much is obvious and certainly need not be said, right? I mean, it's like saying every person makes mistakes or that the Sun rises in the east. Your reference to the FDA field agents' actions being mere inadequacies is a colossal understatement. I'm glad one of has a grip on the situation. Thank my lucky stars that I'm not trying to convince you differently because you obviously have no reservations about using conjured up notions of things I never said or even remotely implied. ...And you inject a plea to the emotions that "nobody's perfect" not even you Zon, thus greasing the way for, you have inadequacies Zon and so do they. That was an obvious red flag making me the object of your comment -- juxtaposition me to the FDA field agent -- jerking around the empathy emotion that is tethered to mans good nature. (Which is true and why ultimately I want to help the FDA.) It's not nice to jerk around with man's nature.

In reality, all you did was identify two common human characteristics; 1) no person is perfect. 2) every person has inadequacies. Where you erred, and erred big time was in the implied juxtaposition that because of our common human characteristics our actions are equal in competence. The difference between the value of my work product and work ethics and the "value" of the FDA filed agents' work product and work ethics are at opposite ends of the spectrum. For sure that  is a less than honest tactic. Though I still hold on the outside chance that you may have been unaware of how to construct a reasoned argument thus you're comfortable using emotional arguments due to repeated use or habit. I do hope it's the later because if it's one thing to err and be able to correct the error so as not to repeat it; but quite another thing to knowingly be less than honest thereby defaulting to being one's own worst enemy.

You are very naive if you think we should have a medical free-for-all.

I'm not naive and I don't think there should be a medical free-for-all. I do wonder if you could be so naive as to think everything is just hunky-dory with how the FDA conducts itself. And heaven forbid that you would think to ask me for additional information. We're beyond that now; you had your chance but you chose to flaunt your true colors. It just never crossed your mind to ask yet you were quick in your intent to, IMO protecting something you harbor that is again, most likely you being your own worst enemy, or worse, having a vested interest in not allowing the FDA be exposed for defrauding Americans.

44 posted on 01/07/2002 2:16:59 PM PST by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Rowdee
Thanks, Rowdee, for the heads up. This is so reminiscent of my dad's stand for patients' rights to choose their own treatment. Government -- can it ever just get out of the way?

I pray we find the answer.

45 posted on 01/07/2002 4:24:23 PM PST by MSSC6644
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Zon
Mirror, mirror on the wall,
Who's the maddest of us all?
46 posted on 01/07/2002 10:11:46 PM PST by Kay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Kay
ROTFLMAO!!!!

Thanks, that felt great. I really need that.

Now that that's out of the way.. I'm still laughing. Composure

Okay, let's try this again. Would you care to seriously address the post #44?

47 posted on 01/07/2002 10:26:22 PM PST by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Gelato
The FDA needs to be completely overhauled. A combination of bureacratic bumbling, power hunger, greed, conspiracy, outright nasty vindictiveness and sheer, uncaring evil, has resulted in an agency that generally accomplishes the exact opposite of its orignally intended purpose, moreso than virtually any other agency. Generally, FDA policy has very little to do with protecting the health of Americans. Man how I loathe the liars and freedom squashers that make up the FDA!
48 posted on 01/07/2002 10:48:02 PM PST by bluefish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson